Nice posting Keith.. and believe me I aggree with you and our Mr Moffait on the basic issue here. Its just that one can not escape the reality of factual language use. Point is that try as much as you may, you will simply never achieve anything near total aggreement on the usage or definitions of these terms. In the end we need to rely on out communicative skills with regard to things like context to make sure we understand each other. I see this disscussion comming up from time to time, and am aware of the PTG's definitions in these regards. I observe apparent dissagreement amoung some technicians, and I see the fact that the public at large uses these two words more often then not in what ever manner suits them. I choose then, to not get all hung up in the preciseness of word usage because that, past a certain floating point, is simply a dead end. Instead I try to make sure I understand what a person is saying using many of the other language tools we have at our disposal. And believe me... that is hard enough as it is. Antares posting was a good example. The content of his advice was fine and sound. Yet he was shot down for all that fine advice simply on the usage of one or two words. Like I said... I see the need for standardization, but understand that beyond a limited scope in practice such standards dont and never will exist. This is not to say that we should give up trying to achieve such standards... its just to say that we need to realize their actual limitations, and not rely tooooo much on them. It is a mistake to assume that people use words, or ever will, in the same manner to mean the same things. kam544@flash.net wrote: > >...I might also point out that "restoration" for museum usage is by no > >means the same as "restoration" for someone who fully intends to use an > >instrument in the home or otherwise. While we pick at the meaning of words > >we need to be mindfull of contexts and situations in order to put language > >into meaningfull perspective... > >Richard Brekne > > Ironically, Richard, your comments support the difference between > restoration and rebuilding, as there most assuredly is a difference, and a > significant one at that. I am in full agreement with Robert Moffait, who > knows what he is saying. > > Equally, Edward Swenson, RPT, a master of piano restoration at a Toronto > Convention in 1987 cleared that matter up for me, once and for all. > Regardless of the context or situation, the words represent two different > means to achieve an end result in piano work. A fully functioning > instrument capable of being used, admired, displayed, etc.. > > Poaching an egg is not the same as frying an egg. You can pick all you > want about contexts and situations, and the meanings of words, but the two > methods, restoration and rebuilding, are entirely different with a common > end result of use. > > Restoration of a piano is to keep the parts as original as possible at all > costs, so much so that even a trained eye would have a difficult time > telling such work was done at all. Exhausting work and documentation > > Rebuilding a piano constitutes replacement of parts in a major way, and a > trained eye would know that such work had been performed. Please > understand this, I am not addressing the issue as to what degree of > replacement of parts constitutes partial versus total rebuilding, and all > that falls in between. > > There will be some who refuse to accept this reality of different > terminology, but regardless, it doesn't change the truth about it > whatsoever. Antares understood that completely, and acknowledged such > without hesitation. That says a lot for his personage. Sure... no problem... Antatres is a heck of a guy. > > > Keith McGavern > Registered Piano Technician > Oklahoma Chapter 731 > Piano Technicians Guild > USA -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC