The historiography of musical instrument design has long been dominated by organology: the science of musical instruments and their classification. Recently, however, scholars from Science & Technology Studies (STS) have also taken up the study of musical instrument development. This article reviews the newest organological and STS literature on musical instruments to show which questions and approaches STS has added to the rich work of the organologists. We first address the contribution of theories on innovation to the organologists’ discussions of what counts as a genuinely new musical instrument, as well as to their explanations for the rise of such instruments. Second, our argument will show how STS scholars have studied settings of musical instrument design that are beyond the dominant paradigm of the organologists. One example is the recent interest in STS for the use and development of musical instruments in the context of the laboratory. Another example is the study of contemporary practices of ‘retro-innovation': the reconstruction of early musical instruments, such as the replica design and restoration of North European baroque organs, and the reinvention of obsolete instruments. This article concludes with a few suggestions for the future study of musical instrument design from the perspective of STS.
AdkinsCecil. 2001. The German oboe in the eighteenth century. The Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society27: 5–47.
2.
AhrensChristian.1996. Technological innovations in nineteenth-century instrument making and their consequences. The Musical Quarterly80(2): 332–9.
3.
BarbieriPatrizio. 2006. Giambattista Della Porta's ‘singing’ hydraulis and other expressive devices for the organ, c. 1560–1860. The Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society32: 145–66.
4.
NesAd, and BoeremaHarry, eds. 2006. Het Hinsz-orgel in de Catharina-kerk te Roden. Roden: Stichting tot Behoud van het Hinsz-orgel te Roden.
5.
BijsterveldKarin, and SchulpMarten. 2004. Breaking into a world of perfection: innovation in today's classical musical instruments. Social Studies of Science34(5): 649–74.
6.
BraunHans-Joachim, ed. 2002Music and technology in the 20th century. Baltimore [etc.]: Johns Hopkins University Press.
7.
CarlssonAnders, et al.2000. Tracing the organ masters’ secrets. The reconstruction of the North German Baroque Organ for Örgryte Nya Kyrka. Gothenburg: GOArt.
8.
ClementsCary. 1995. Augustus Stroh and the famous Stroh violin. Experimental Musical Instruments 11 (June): 8–15, (September): 38–39.
9.
CluttonCecil. 1961The pianoforte. In Musical instruments through the ages, ed. BainesA., 88–102. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
10.
CollinsHarry M. 1985. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London [etc.]: Sage.
11.
DobneyJayson. 2004. The creation of the trap set and its development before 1920. The Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society30: 24–56.
12.
DoganMattei, and PahreRobert. 1990. Creative marginality: Innovation at the intersections of social sciences. Boulder [etc.]: Westview Press.
13.
EliasonRobert E. 2005. Bugles beyond compare: The presentation E-flat keyed bugle in mid-nineteenth-century America. The Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society31: 67–132.
14.
GeiringerKarl. 1978. Instrumente in der Musik des Abendlandes. Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck.
15.
GétreauFlorence. 2005. Recent research about the Voboam family and their guitars. The Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society31: 5–66.
16.
HankinsThomas L., and SilvermanRobert J.. 1995. Instruments and the imagination. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
17.
HeeringPeter. 2008. The enligthened microscope: re-enactment and analysis of projections with eighteenth-century solar microscopes. British Journal for the History of Science (3): 345–367.
18.
HidemarkOve, et al.1993. Drottningholm Court Theatre: Its advent, fate, and preservation. Stockholm: Byggförlaget.
19.
HommelsAnique. 2005. Unbuilding cities. Obduracy in urban sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
HoningHenkjan. 2006. On the growing role of observation, formalization and experimental method in musicology. Empirical Musicology Review1(1): 2–6.
21.
HoweRobert S. 2003. The invention and early development of the saxophone, 1840–55. The Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society29: 97–108.
22.
HughesThomas P. 1987. The evolution of large technological systems. InThe social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, eds. HughesThomas P., et al. 51–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
JacksonMyles W. 2006. Harmonious triads. Physicists, musicians, and instrument makers in nineteenth-century Germany. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
KivyPeter. 1995. Authenticities. Philosophical reflections on musical performance. Ithaca andLondon: Cornell University Press.
25.
KoppJames B. 2002. Precursors of the bassoon in France before Louis XIV. Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society28: 63–117.
26.
KuronenDarcy. 2002. Early violin making in New England. The Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society28: 5–62.
27.
KursellJulia. 2008. Sound objects. InSounds of Science-Schall im Labor (1900–1930), ed. KursellJulia, 29–38. Berlin: Max Planck Institutfür Wissenschafstsgeschichte.
28.
LawsonColin, and StowellRobin. 1999. The historical performance of music. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
LibinLaurence. 2000. Progress, adaptation, and the evolution of musical instruments. Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society26: 187–213.
30.
MacMillanDouglas. 2007. An organological overview of the recorder1800–1905. The Galpin Society Journal LX: 191–202.
31.
McSwainRebecca. 2000. The social reconstruction of a reverse salient in electric guitar technology: Noise, the solid body and Jimi Hendrix. In Music and technology in the 20th century, ed. BraunHans-Joachim, 198–210. Baltimore [etc.]: Johns Hopkins University Press.
32.
MontaguJeremy. 2006. The creation of new instruments. The Galpin Society Journal LIX: 3–12.
33.
NeudorferSonja. 2008. The transmission of artisanal and professional company knowledge during the process of globalization: German violin and piano making during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Paper Technologies of Globalization: International Conference Organized by the DFG Graduate School Topology of Technologies, TU-Darmstadt, October30–31, 2008.
34.
PetersPeter Frank.2009. Retracing old organ sound: Authenticity and the structure of artistic arguments. Krisis (1). Athttp://www.krisis.eu/content/2009–1/2009–1–02-peters.pdf.
35.
PickstoneJohn. 2000. Ways of knowing: a new history of science, technology and medicine. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
36.
PickstoneJohn. 2007. Working knowledges before and after circa 1800: Practics and disciplines in the history of science, technology, and medicine. Isis98: 489–516.
37.
PinchTrevor, and BijsterveldKarin. 2003. ‘Should one applaud?’ Breaches and boundaries in the reception of new technology in music. Technology and Culture44(3): 536–59.
38.
PinchTrevor, and TroccoFrank. 2002. Analog days. The invention and impact of the Moog synthesizer. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
39.
RemnantMary. 1989. Musical instruments. An illustrated history from antiquity to the present. Portland, OR: Amadeus Press.
40.
RiegerMatthias. 2006. Helmholtz Musicus. Die Objektivierung der Musik im 19. Jahrhundert durch Helmholtz’ Lehre von den Tonempfindungen. Darmstadt: WBG.
41.
RoellCraig H. 1989. The piano in America 1890–1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
42.
SachsCurt. 1940. The history of musical instruments. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
43.
SadieStanley, ed. 1995. The New Grove dictionary of music and musicians. London [etc.]: MacMillan Publishers.
44.
ScheckGustav. 1975. Die Flöte und Ihre Musik. Mainz: B. Schott's Söhne.
45.
Schultz-SchaefferIngo. 2002. Innovation durch Konzeptübertragung. Der Rückgriff auf Bekanntes bei der Erzeugung technischer Neuerungen am Beispiel der Multiagentensystem-Forschung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie31(3): 232–51.
46.
SnyderKerala J., ed. 2002. The organ as a mirror of its time. North European Reflections, 1610–2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
SpeerstraJoel. 2003. The North German Organ Research Project at Göteborg University. Gothenburg: Göteborg Organ Art Center.
48.
TaruskinRichard. 1995. Text and act. Essays on music and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
ThébergePaul. 1997. Any sound you can imagine. Making music/consuming technology. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
50.
TophamJohn. 2003. A dendrochronological study of violins made by Antonio Stradivari. The Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society29: 72–96.
51.
YoungJames. 2002. The concept of authentic performance. In Arguing about art. Contemporary philosophical debates, ed. by A. Neill and A. Ridley, 69–81. London [etc.]: Routledge.
52.
LooyVan, Bart, and RobberechtsGeert. 2004. Heterogeneity as a prerequisite for regime shifts to unfold: The case of the baroque violin technique, Paper Academy of Management Conference, New Orleans, August6–11.
53.
Looy, BartVan. 2008. Prerequisites for regime shifts to unfold: Exploring the case of the baroque violin technique. Paper 4S/EASST Conference, Rotterdam, August20–23.
54.
VerbeekPeter Paul.2005. What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park, PA: PennState University Press.
