hey, stop hijacking my KVS thread! just kidding..never
realized I would be opening up such a Pandora's Box..am
thoroughly enjoying reading all these well-founded opinions and am learning a lot from them, too. Before I jump in with my 2 cents worth again, I want to apologize for the clumsy analogy re spelling in my last thread which offended some. I wasn't trying to be a mean-spirited spelling critic--I would have served all better had I been clearer..probably an analogy about using spellchecker technology as a shortcut compared to using transpose technology to achieve the same end would have been
right on. Like that better? Ok, here's the 2 cents worth:

It seems to me everyone is making very valid points, but
some of the underlying assumptions should maybe come under more scrutiny. If music is good, why should it matter how it is achieved? Again I cite Irving Berlin: he "cheated",used a transposer(all the time!!!), and became arguably our greatest--
certainly our most prolific and enduring-- songwriter. The digital piano eliminates the need to tune. Would you argue
that having to determine when your piano needs tuning is invaluable ear training, therefore the player of a digital piano is a fraud? On the other hand, there is the issue of
crap music. If the spread of technology is in large part responsible for the preponderance of drek, then a case can be made that the ease of production allows music to
fall into less capable hands, and therefore standards of
craftsmanship should be maintained for that reason alone
and those who shortcut should be despised. However, if
you take that stance...remember it is you who are using
arranger keyboards. do you fell like a hypocrite?
A friend who is a well-known recording engineer said this to me 15 years ago: "The studio and recording technology keeps getting better and better, the sound quality improves by quantum leaps--at the same time the product gets worse and worse...why should that be?" Oh my, always are more questions, eh?
Miami Mo