Donny, I don't think it' right for us to say what is good or bad for someone else; we can only say what works for ourselves. Technology in and of itself is fine, but is no substitute for talent and hard work. There are no real shortcuts to mastering a musical instrument; if an arranger makes you sound good but you don't sound good without it, then that says something about you and the arranger. If you've reached your peak as a musician and still require the assistance of technology to make you 'good enough' to 'get paid', that's fine; just don't delude yourself into thinking you're better than you are.

When I listen to guys like Joey Alexander, or Hiromi, or Cory Henry, or Keith Jarrett, playing (solo piano) before thousands (in concert), it's not their ENTERTAINING skills (except in the broader sense) but their incredible MUSICAL performances that we remember and admire. Oh sure, if we're just knocking down beer in a noisy bar or club and more interested in getting wasted or 'hooking up' than the music, then yeah, practically any kind of music is acceptable ('cause we aren't there for the music). As someone pointed out, so many things determine the suitability, outcome, etc., of a musical performance, not the least of which is the audience you're playing for.

So, my problem with the TITLE of this post is the word "STUCK". Because someone CHOOSES to use gear that is working for them but may not be the 'latest, greatest', doesn't necessarily mean that they're 'stuck in the Old', just that they don't see any ADDITIONAL benefits that the newer technology would bring to what they're doing. The acoustic piano has changed little for a very long time and given a choice, most pro-level jazz organist will still take a '59 B3 & Leslie over the most expensive digital 'clonewheel'. Technology is great, but it's not always better. JMO.

There is ONE instance where technology is better, ACCORDIONS; the new digital technology in modern ones can make them sound like SOMETHING ELSE (sorry Tony).

chas