That was the quote of the day!

....if not more.

Not a fair comparison since each Picasso truly is one of a kind. I would, however, love to do just that!

Each Steinway is also one of a kind no piano is identical

You do realize that many people think likewise of pianos?

I sure do. Look: Even leaving aside issues of varying workmanship, even when the workers are only machines .....no two pieces of wood are identical.

The fact of every piano being unique (anyway I'm calling it a fact) is why it astonishes me that so many people seem happy to buy pianos sight-unseen (and sound-unheard), or, for that matter, to buy a piano in need of rebuilding before seeing and hearing what it'll be after the rebuilding. The nature of a piano depends on its materials, workmanship, and history, and you never know exactly what it is or what it'll be until you see.

Edit: Thanks, Pogo, for saying the same thing in just one line.

The comparison between art and music instruments is a good one, for two reasons.

Reason one: Nobody who buys a Picasso is asked if they know anything about art, or can paint themselves. The only requirement for buying a Picasso is the proper amount of money. The same is true for pianos, even if some people might not like it.

Reason two: The original question in this thread was, if acoustic pianos will be obsolete one day. Well, we just have to look at the world of visual arts. We have photography (now digital), we have powerful software programs that can help the artist create interesting works; and we now even have 3D printers. And yet, oil painting has not become obsolete. People still do it, people still love it, people still buy oil paintings.

So I'm optimistic that acoustic instruments, especially pianos, are here to stay.

Many of those people DO use their pianos as trays.

I still find the comparison laughable.

I cringe at that. Even when it's on coasters.

Nothing is allowed to be on my piano! (Except my metronome, hygrometer, pen, glasses, phone, a second hygrometer to make sure the first one is accurate, and sheet music.)

I don't even allow pens and phones. I don't have a hygrometer and I hardly use a metronome, so that leaves glasses, and sheet music.

Well, hopefully not a mirror!

Really? I suppose you think marrying for money is a valid as marrying for love. People do things for the wrong reasons all the time. The prime example is entering politics but I could fill a book.

I think it is.

I use my Digital Piano as a tray for my hygrometers, among other things.

A person's motivation for any action is based on a value judgement. Value judgements vary between people (and within people over time).

Similarly peoples' value judgement on other people's motivations .......

Oh boy. Please tell us you're kidding?

Or maybe that's right... and maybe that could be my ticket to being rich! Helll, I'm good looking - now just have to find a rich husband and I WILL own a Steinway!!!

I'm not sure about the merits of different reasons for marrying, but I am sure about (my opinion) of the merits of buying a piano. I didn't say the merits for doing anything are the same. Certainly the merits of different reasons for going to war are not the same.

But buying a piano for furniture or prestige or as an expensive coffee table for photos does no harm. It doesn't prevent anyone else from buying a piano because there is no shortage of pianos.

It kills the soul of the piano, because that piano is never played. A piano is not a couch ...

poor piano.

I read a article from 2009 in BBC Music Magazine where Olli Mustonen had to choose a Steinway Grand from all the units on offer in the Steinway showroom. A layman might think one grand is like another, yet he chose one specific example!
Yet if they were DPs they would likely be all the same!

I'm not.

You wouldn't be the first.

And would it be fair to anybody?

And I thought -I- had no morals haha

The soul of the piano?

Even if one agreed that pianos have souls, I think you're assuming what that would somehow imply they must be used as musical instruments.

And think about the number of cultures where arranged marriages - marriages arranged for the mutual benefit of the families concerned, not for that of the marrying couple - are the norm. Those marriages are arranged on the basis of social and financial standing as well as on religious compatibility.

Does one consider the "fairness" or the "morality" of such marriages. Yes, perhaps, but only if viewed from a North American perspective. It's hard for some of us to understand how fair and moral arranged marriages can be when we aren't raised in the social context where such are the norm.

Regards,

No, I'm sorry - they we're built to be used for firewood.

A better question IMO: Would it be unfair to anybody?

Is love fair to anybody?

Yes....... To the person with the cash.

Damon - what kind of a question is that? You think it's fair for some broad to marry a rich guy while not giving a damn about him, possibly having affairs left and right - is that fair to the guy, really? Is that better than two people in love getting married?

I am a cynic too at times, but come on... Love is the most powerful thing in the world and a marriage is kind of cheapened if the main reason for getting hitched is money or whatever else...

What Pogo said.

Said, obviously, by a young starry-eyed romantic from a decidedly North American point of view. Given that the American divorce rate is almost 50% (46% in 2012), how strong an argument is that for "marrying for love"?

Not if they know what they're getting into.

In my opinion, if both parties are consenting to have a marriage based on material values (e.g. one party wants a trophy, the other party wants money), then I have no problem with them marrying.

However, I disagree with arranged marriages, if at least one spouse does not want to be married, and is unhappy in the marriage.

But a piano will not feel that. Although I'm not happy at the thought of a well-crafted piano just standing in a room without being played, I accept that a piano is not a person.

I am European.

OH! and why do you assume that the marriages based on "love" are the only ones to fall apart?