Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Poll (sort of): Will the 'acoustic piano' become a relic?

Government pays the schools a lot. But only the official recognised institutions. And the government also judges the quality of the institutions and for accreditation of the diplomas. So I suppose they have quite some influence on WHAT is being teached.

Perhaps in general education but what government document or instruction can you produce that outlines and refines the process of building and tuning a piano? Can't a home schooled person become an expert piano builder or tuner without the assistance of government? Or is it this?

Hey, I'm a decidedly older person. I'm on your side.

(More or less happliy married for 30 years. One of my favorite songs is "Hello Young Lovers" from the King and I. It pretty much says it all.)

I don't know the situation in America; but in Germany there are schools ("Berufsfachschulen") where instrument building is taught as a profession. The schools are usually public schools and supervised by the government.

Another way to become an instrument builder is in a company; starting as an apprentice and eventually becoming a graduate and a master.
I don't know much about the training system in companies; but I believe that government agencies supervise them. After all, diplomas should be comparable.

No such thing exists in the US. (Big surprize, right?)

I never said she did. Get it right, dude!

That's what you seemed to imply.

But maybe not so intense as We Kiss in the Shadow?

I'm sick of young people using adjectives in place of active verbs.

Fixed. (I think?)

--

EDIT: Damnit, someone help me out with this grammar.

"don't condescend to me" or "don't condescend me"

I don't even care about my previous post, I just want to know!

Joel, there was actually nothing wrong with your sentence.

I give up.

No, that is not "why capitalism is good" - it's merely an assertion of some beliefs you have about the marketplace and about people and about musical instruments. To me, it amounts to "why capitalism is bad", because there's a false relationship between demand, worth, and cost.

A flaw in the premise that immediately pops into mind is this: the people who may find the most value in an instrument (or whatever) and can get the most use out of it, may also be the least able to afford that item. It's quite possible for something that has worth to the culture as a whole to fail in the marketplace.

Unfortunately, the only objective, universal measure of "value" that we have is money. By that measure, the people who find the most value in instruments (or anything else) are the people willing to pay the most for them.

Beyond that, there are various private and subjective measures of "value" capable of yielding any sort of argumentative conclusion clearly implied by the premises with which one begins the argument.

... "dude"?

Well, since you ask, "condescend" is a verb while "condescending" is an adjective. People can condescend, but they cannot condescending. People can, however, be condescending.

Not true. It is perfectly acceptable to use the verb as a present participle with an "ing" ending.

Example: I'm tired of people speaking to me like I'm a child.

The word speaking can be an adjective, but in this case, it functions as a verb and an alternative to the following sentence:

I'm of people who speak to me like I'm a child.

The use of "condescending" as a present participle makes it a verb in a continuously active form. It happens all the time in all sorts of situation.

I'm tired of driving to work.
I'm sick of people complaining.

It's the same thing as Joel's sentence.

Yes I understand that but I was asking about whether or not to use 'to' after 'condescend', see the edit in my post you quoted.

Isn't Joel a "dude"?

The usual expression is to be condescending towards someone.

Regards,