[pianotech] nomenclature

[johnparham at piano88.com]

99% of what we talk about on this and other lists is clearly referenced
in Piano Parts and Their Functions. It's hard to justify not using this
resource.

-John Parham 



> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [pianotech] nomenclature
> From: Ron Nossaman <rnossaman at cox.net>
> Date: Mon, November 14, 2011 11:00 pm
> To: pianotech at ptg.org
> 
> 
> On 11/14/2011 9:02 PM, David Nereson wrote:
> >       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
> 
> And after all these years, real information and communication of same is 
> still way down on the priority list to either scoring style points or 
> inventing nomenclature as you go along through unwillingness to look it 
> up. A reasonably accurate assessment, and a compelling reason to curtail 
> involvement.
> Ron N