Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
JUS
VOL.
LXXVI. No. 14 Piblished Every Saturday by Edward Lyman Bill, Inc., 373 4th Ave., New York, N. Y.
April. 7, 1923
8I
"«{$ J £°S!£
££ ent '
SIllWlllXIIIKlllXlllKlllXlllXlllKIIM^
The Way That Leads to Standardization
MttlllWIIIKIIIKIIIWIIIKIM
T
H E discussion of the question of standardization of piano parts and supplies has been going on for sev-
eral years, but its actual results have not been great, apparently because any real attempts towards
standardization have been confined to minor parts and have made but little impression upon either the
manufacturers or the trade at large.
For several years there has been in existence, representing one of the divisions of the Music Industries
Chamber of Commerce, a Standardization Committee which has gone into the matter extensively and from time
to time has issued reports of what might or might not be accomplished. The committee, no doubt, has been
earnest in its efforts as the reports show a careful study of the situation, but the fact remains that even to-day
the standardization of piano parts remains a problem, not an accomplishment.
In a recent issue of The Review, Justus Hattemer, vice-president of the Premier Grand Piano Corp.,
New York, and a practical piano-maker of recognized ability, set forth that all attempts at standardization in
the matter of pianos represented wasted effort unless work was begun on the fundamentals and the case itself
standardized. This is a point that is worthy of careful consideration and on close analysis is open to little
argument.
At a conference some time ago a casemaker was very frank in declaring that some requirements oi manu-
facturers in the matter of cases are little short of ridiculous, for the reason that one, two or three inches' differ-
ence in the dimensions of the case has little or no bearing upon the appearance or tone quality of the instru-
ment. That simply adds to the complications of manufacturing rather than to the attractiveness of the product.
This particular casemaker cited instances where extra space in cases actually went to waste, and that a con-
siderably smaller case could be used successfully for housing the plate and action regularly used by the manu-
facturer.
It is a suggestion of Mr. Hattemer, and a good suggestion withal, that piano cases be limited to three
sizes, as the primary step in the move towards successful standardization. The adoption of this principle in the
first instance would provide for increased and more economic case production, enabling the case manufacturer
to cut his stock in large quantities and well in advance of demand, so that there would be none of the delays inci-
dent to changing over machinery to cut a score or more different styles of dimension stock.
There will, undoubtedly, be manufacturers who will argue that, in being confined to three sizes of upright
cases, they will not be able to exhibit originality in case design and thereby be stripped of various sales argu-
ments in favor of their products. As a matter of fact, the standardization of sizes refers simply to the bare
case, the matter of finish and ornamentation still remaining in the hands of the individual manufacturer, who
can do with it as he wills.
Under present conditions it means little to attempt to standardize such items as action brackets, hammer
shanks, etc., when there are such a variety of styles demanded for the many sizes of cases. When twenty or
thirty different forms of one particular part are required to meet manufacturers' demands, there can be no
standardization, not even when the number is reduced to ten. Standardization thus remains more or less a joke.
When the variety of parts is reduced to, say, three or four then standardization may be said to be a success.
The fact remains that a general open discussion on the standardization question in convention is going
to accomplish little or nothing. The plan has been tried and failed, nor will committees working on a dozen
or more minor questions of standardization accomplish much in the solution of the general problem.
It might be well in the further consideration of this matter, which fortunately continues to remain alive,
to place it in the hands of a committee of factory superintendents, men who from experience rather than hear-
say know what it means to have production held up because a specially designed part has not been received
from the supply men, and who realize the benefits that will accrue to the industry by solving this problem.