[pianotech] nomenclature

[David Nereson]

     I agree, but trouble is, there are many piano parts that have several
"accepted" names used by those who should be adhering to some standard
nomenclature.  What Yamaha calls a 'bottom frame' might be a 'kickboard' to
Kawai.  'Regulating rail' was the proper term for what many techs now call
the 'letoff rail.'  And I suppose most of us are aware of the different
terms used by factory techs that are not common among those who never
worked in a piano factory, such as 'fly' for the jack, 'roller' for the
knuckle, or maybe 'balancier' for the repetition lever.  Even among those
who know better, someone will insist on calling the plate the "harp" just
because they think it's esoteric or cool or whatever.  What used to
commonly be called the "wrest plank" is now almost always referred to as
the "pinblock." And names of some case parts -- 'stretcher' and
'fall(-board)' come to mind -- were inherited from the furniture industry
and others, such as 'capstan,' from the shipbuilders.  And of course many
piano owners with older instruments are fairly certain that the "felts" or
"pads" probably need attention.
   I doubt that nomenclature will ever be 100% standardized, or agreed
upon.  Just as with cars -- our "hood" is a "bonnet" to the Brits, and the
"trunk" is the "boot."  Our "wrench" is their "spanner," etc.  Most of us
think we know what a hubcap is, but it's really the wheel cover, and a true
hubcap is only about two inches in diameter and can also be called a grease
cup.
    Fifteen or more years ago, the Journal published an article about why
'wippen' is the correct spelling of that part, and not "whippen," but the
latter persists.  And, though I don't like it either, so will other
doohickeythingamabobwidgets.
     --David Nereson, RPT

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Ron Nossaman <rnossaman at cox.net> wrote:

>
> A plea for sanity,
>
> While it's still a long way from comprehensive, there is a standard
> reference in this country that would eliminate most of the characteristic
> recursive guesswork when someone asks a question making up parts names as
> they go along. For $20 and shipping, "Piano Parts and Their Functions"
> would often save considerably more than that in cumulative time spent just
> trying to understand the description. A lot of us were in the business long
> before the piano crisis hotline existed, and will likely still be when it
> ends, and so were forced to figure straightforward mechanical linkages (and
> a lot of other things) out for ourselves. Given the amazing luxury of an on
> line knowledge base willing to help, the consideration of using the most
> widely recognized and nominally standardized nomenclature gives the people
> trying to help something to work with, without making long Q&A translation
> not worth the effort. With a $20 book, we'd save 20 posts attempting
> clarification as everyone could look up the same common names, and start
> with the actual problem.
>
> I understand that it's an unreasonable expectation, but it remains what I
> consider a reasonable request to at least make some attempt to accurately
> name what we're talking about.
> Ron N
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20111114/2184a44d/attachment.htm>