Well they’ve spent 140 dollars on the casette recorder so they might as well stick with the tutor
That’s the price of a couple of lessons. And I’m not saying that the old lady can’t offer some good advice…piano should absolutely be required for singers, as should be playing with a METRONOME. However, a good music department can have VERY good vocal faculty, especially if the department has a reputation for producing a lot of working successful singers.
Seriously, singers need to use a metronome, religiously. For that matter, they should have to learn to play the drums, just to get their sense of rhythm in some kind of basic order.
[/rant]
The girl doesn’t use a metronome but she has some problems singing in tune so the piano will be used.
Here’s one for only $54.95: Edison Wax Candle Cylinder Phonograph Kit by Gakken : ID 1843 : $54.95 : Adafruit Industries, Unique & fun DIY electronics and kits
I bet you could get one at a garage sale for $5.
It also has “random access” rather than having to fast-forward/rewind
There is also the problem if you’re swapping tapes around you’ve got to have them on the correct side
Purely anecdotal…but I go to some few garage and yard sales 'round these parts…and it’s been literally years since I’ve seen cassettes or tape players. Maybe Goodwill, but I can’t say I’ve seen any there in years either.
Is she hoping for a career in singing or teaching people to sing? That’s going to be a long uphill battle if she has trouble staying on pitch.
Sunk cost fallacy.
This is a textbook example.
And you try to use it here. Apparently without shame.
This is how people stay poor.
The girl’s guardian thinks that maybe the girl might become a piano teacher - maybe.
The only reason to avoid that tutor seems to be that she demanded the students get an expensive tape recorder but now that that has been purchased I don’t see any other reasons to avoid the teacher. There are advantages such as one of the students being an award-winning singer (won a contest) and doing piano and singing lessons with the same tutor means less travelling. Also the teacher said she’d teach things in one lesson that would often take other tutors 3 lessons. (the example was that some tutors teach one hand for the first lesson, then the other hand for the other lesson, then both for the third lesson while this tutor just does both hands straight away)
BTW if you bought a movie ticket that couldn’t be refunded or transferred and then found out that the movie had poor reviews, would you still go to the movie? I would. But I wouldn’t buy any popcorn, etc - after all I don’t normally buy popcorn anyway.
Edit: I guess it is different with the singing tutor because her lessons cost money after the purchase of the tape recorder has been made. But the purchase of the tape recorder isn’t the only reason to see her - it is just one of the reasons.
I found an old one when cleaning a few weeks ago. I used it for taping lectures back in the day and never got rid of it.
Yeah, I think Derleth misinterpreted your reasoning as “well, now they have to stick with that tutor or else the $140 will be wasted”, whereas what you seem to be saying is more like “well, if the $140 expense wasn’t a dealbreaker for them then there’s no reason not to go on working with this tutor”.
OK, these are all valid reasons to see the tutor, and makes this less of an example of the fallacy I mentioned.
No, and this cuts to the heart of what the sunk cost fallacy is: The money I spent on the ticket is a sunk cost. It’s gone. No action of mine can get it back. Wave it goodbye.
Therefore, my goal now is to minimize my losses, and seeing as how I value my time, I consider wasted time to be a loss. So I would not see the movie because wasting my time on the movie would not get my money back; it would only cost me time in addition to the money, which is, per hypothesis, completely lost.
If I don’t see the film, I’ve lost money.
If I do see the film, I’ve lost money and I’ve lost time.
I consider the first option to be the better outcome.
Waitaminute though, Derleth, that’s assuming that the ticket-buyer’s interest in seeing the movie depends only on the reviews.
I took JohnClay to be saying instead, “Suppose you bought a ticket for a movie you wanted to see and it was nonrefundable, and then you found out that the reviews were poor: would that automatically negate your initial interest in the movie to the extent that you’d just eat the cost on the ticket and not even give it a chance?”
Yeah that’s right. BTW recently someone asked me of an example of a movie I’d give a really low rating and I couldn’t think of one
This may shock some but there exists a store called Goodwill where one can purchase a cassette recorder for a five spot. I know the store locations are incredibly rare so you may have to drive an automobile a few blocks to find one, but once there you will also have access to maternity dresses decades out of date, a full collection of dusty romance novels and more tacky wall art than you can hang in your abode.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand this sentence.
How elderly exactly, is this tutor?
This doesn’t necessarily reflect the skills of the tutor. It could just reflect the natural talent of this particular singer. If there were multiple award winning singers under his/her tutelage, then you might have evidence of a good tutor.