acoustic? ACOUSTIC???

[Tom Cole]

JIMRPT@aol.com wrote:
> 
> 2. In regard for and to my capitulation you must, equally kindly, agree to
> refrain from calling our beloved transporter of soul and spirit an "acoustical
> piano".

Now that you mention it, "acoustical piano" doesn't sit so well with me
either. I wish we could step into a specially modified British phone
booth, ala Dr. Who, and travel back to that time and place to speak with
the individual(s) who mis-coined this little kludge. Maybe he/she/they
could be persuaded that "piano" means "piano" and that the come-latelies
need to have a different word.

Sure, clocks with hands got retronymmed "analog" to distinguish from
"digital" but that made more sense. What "acoustic" adds to "piano" is
questionable. The piano is widely understood to be for the benefit of
our hearing organs. Isn't it a little too overly redundant to say
"acoustical"?

As someone mentioned earlier, in reference to piano tone getting more
brilliant over the years, maybe we could change the name to "forte"
and... Nah, I'm too attached to the word "piano". Here is an instance
where Occam's razor should be applied - to shave off this unnecessary
modifier.

Tom
-- 
Thomas A. Cole RPT
Santa Cruz, CA