Mechatronic Developments and Communities
In this article, I aim to describe how mechatronic musical instruments and sound installations have gradually gained a foothold in the cultural world since around 1980. I am particularly interested in how the cultural world has engaged with this technological innovation. After all, communities and cultural actors have translated this innovation into practice, in collaboration with artists, audiences, art institutions, and companies. This practice and the “mechatronic” evolution did not occur in a linear or uniform way. This dynamic process of creating a meaningful, new mechatronic instrument (with instrument builders, composers, performers, and audience) is still in full swing today. This text is a sociological reflection on this evolution, based on my years of experience and practice in working with these instruments; it is not the result of a scientific study. In this article, I examine three communities: those centered around the computer-controlled player piano, the world of experimental music and sound art, and, thirdly, the community surrounding the hyperorgans.
The first computer-controlled pianos played a significant role in the overall development of mechatronic instruments and sound systems. In 1978, Marantz released the Pianocorder, and this computer-controlled piano was used by artists, who took it apart and modified it to create their own computer-controlled instruments. Throughout the 1980s, other commercial companies such as Yamaha (the Disklavier) and Bösendorfer also released computer-controlled pianos (see article on mechatronic history). Since the advent of the mechatronic piano, the community surrounding computer-controlled player pianos has largely depended on decisions made by international commercial companies, such as the piano manufacturer Yamaha and Bösendorfer. If you look broadly at how they have approached these innovations, it is noticeable that they primarily focus on improving the user-friendliness of their mechatronic pianos: a simpler interface, easy access to and exchange (between users) of files (e.g., recordings made with the Disklavier), easy access to online repositories (of player piano works) or to stores where you can purchase those files, and the creation of user platforms that allow users to connect with one another. These companies are trying to innovate, create and maintain a community around their (mechatronic) instrument, but their activities remain commercially focused and they do not dare to alter the acoustic basic design of a piano.
The new possibilities offered by computer-controlled pianos were explored primarily within the experimental music and sound art communities. I am thinking, for example, of the Australian composer Alastair Riddell, who had the piano strings struck directly by the hammers of the electromagnets (as with a zither) and then—around 1987—made the metal piano strings vibrate by varying the magnetism (of the electromagnets). In the 1990s, Trimpin built an automatic “prepared piano” with computer-controlled electromagnets that struck the piano strings, objects between the strings, or metal bars (inside that piano) directly.
The companies that manufacture and sell mechatronic pianos are, of course, aware that the piano—and the mechanical player piano—has a very strong tradition and a large fan base. Many people play the piano, and many people are familiar with and recognize the sound of a piano. To put it positively, over the past half-century, the computer-controlled piano has been the only more or less uniform mechatronic instrument (certainly in contrast to the mechatronic instruments and installations in experimental music or sound art). Compared to the world of hyperorgans and that of experimental music, the community surrounding player pianos is more virtual, focused on online exchanges and user spaces. In the “physical” concert scene in venues and clubs, you hardly ever come across a player piano organization or community.
And then there is the second community: that of experimental music, sound art, and experimental instrument builders. This includes the Logos Foundation, where I worked for many years and gained most of my knowledge of mechatronic instruments. In this community, you can see that there was—and still is—a great openness to exploring the new possibilities of mechatronic instruments. These new creations can be very similar to earlier (acoustic) instruments, but they can also break away to create something entirely new. I have described a number of innovations that took place between 1980 and 1995 in connection with the computer-controlled piano. As for the organ, that drive to innovate the instrument went far as well. In experimental music and sound art, artists attempted to redefine the organ from scratch, to completely open up and renew the instrument. If you look at the computer-controlled “organs” built by Martin Riches, Jaques Rémus, Trimpin, or Christof Schlaeger between 1980 and 1995—especially the latter two—you often no longer recognize them (visually) as organs. They consist of organ pipes or elongated resonators arranged in new spatial configurations and driven by a computer-controlled blower. Some “organs” have no fixed pitch, but produce all kinds of noise or unstable, gliding pitches (e.g., Schlaeger’s Rauscher). In the works of Jaques Rémus or Godfried-Willem Raes, you can often recognize (visually) organs, because multiple pipes are grouped and arranged as in a stop. The new possibilities of computer control were explored: the common wind chest, individual stops, or components such as the tremulant are activated via electromagnets and computer control.
The openness within experimental sound art to explore innovations (in terms of instrument making) is closely linked to the unique character of that community. Artists and audiences of experimental music and sound art seek a wide range of contemporary listening and sound experiences—ones that resonate with modern society—that captivate, move, surprise, and provoke thought, among other things. Any formerly traditional instrument can be deconstructed here without much resistance. The basic methods of sound production are explored, leading to the creation of a new instrument or installation. Within experimental sound art, in addition to piano- and organ-based instruments, there are also many computer-controlled sound machines, with little or no reference to earlier instruments. These sound machines produce all kinds of noise and sound—often spatial. Consider, for example, a sound installation like Martin Messier’s Sewing Machine Orchestra, featuring eight computer-controlled Singer sewing machines that produce sound.
Furthermore, the visual aspect —the design (of the new mechatronic instruments)— also plays a major role here. This visual aspect also offers many opportunities for innovation and new forms of expression for artists working in experimental sound art. The recognizability of a traditional instrument and its physical playability (by a musician) are much less important. A mechatronic, computer-controlled guitar does not have to look like a guitar and does not have to be played by a guitarist. Thus, due to the focus on a broad palette of expressions and extra-musical factors within experimental sound art, microcontroller technology has been rapidly adopted and expanded in this field since the 1980s. On the other hand, one could also argue that the large communities (of musicians and listeners) surrounding traditional instruments and ensembles (e.g., a string orchestra) have been somewhat lost in this experimental music and sound art.
Compared to the other two communities, this experimental sound art community is also characterized by a strong sense of individualism, a pioneering spirit, and a drive for uniqueness. Often, there is only one version of the new mechatronic instrument. Often, it is only the creators (and possibly a small number of collaborators) who understand the technical aspects of the installations, set them up, and play them (creating a manual is mostly an exception). Especially when the installations are on display in exhibition spaces for weeks or months, it is not an option to learn and practice to play these instruments... This “unique” character is, of course, not found among companies that build mechatronic musical instruments for “user-customers.” Here, the goal is to consistently deliver an identical instrument to all customers. Yet within the experimental sound art community, there are also creators of mechatronic instruments who provide other musicians with the knowledge and opportunity to work with these instruments. For example, by 2025, an extensive repertoire for the music robots of Raes (Logos Foundation) had emerged, comprising approximately 420 original compositions, 160 arrangements and revised works, 2 operas, and a dozen co-productions. The creators of these works—dozens of Belgian and international artists—have mostly worked in the Logos facilities, and their works have been performed both nationally and internationally.
And then there is the third community centered around so-called hyperorgans; the Orgelpark in Amsterdam played a significant role in the rise and spread of these instruments. These are church organs in which some parts are computer-controlled, such as changing the stops, linking stops together, and supplying the wind. In earlier church organs, these functions were achieved purely mechanically or electrically, but starting around 2005, church organ builders began using computer control for these purposes.
The community surrounding hyperorgans builds upon the strong tradition, religious context, and cultural experience associated with the church organ. The church organ was already firmly embedded in a social context long before computer control and hyperorgans made their appearance. This “new” community surrounding hyperorgans builds upon those existing groups, while also broadening and renewing them. In the past, the musical culture surrounding organs was intertwined with church communities; the church organ served a social function; moreover, non-religious concerts and other cultural events also took place in those churches. A church organ is tied to a specific location, a space, a building with its own acoustics. They are very large, site-specific instruments that require significant investment for construction or renovation. It is therefore not surprising that the computer-controlled versions of the church organ—the hyperorgans—appeared only about 25 years after computer-controlled pianos.
Within the hyperorgans community, there is a balanced blend of tradition and innovation. It seeks to connect with the historical functions, traditions, and communities associated with the church building and the church organ. At the same time, however, the doors are open to musicians—and thus also to audiences—who are drawn to experimental, electronic, or pop music. The computer control of a (church) organ creates different, new artistic and musical possibilities—and thus also different musical styles (and concert rituals). This cultural and technological shift had already taken place earlier (beginning in the 1980s) within the broader community of experimental music. The mechatronic technological innovations have, as it were, been rediscovered, refined, and adapted to the organ community within the hyperorgan community. In the communications and texts of the hyperorgan community, the distinctiveness and strong tradition of church organs are strongly emphasized. The connection to the recent history of all computer-controlled mechatronic instruments is sometimes harder to trace. (I wrote a short article here about inventive computer-controlled organs built by experimental sound artists between 1980 and 2005.)
In summary: the sociological history of mechatronic instruments since 1980 is one of innovations and developments that have unfolded at varying speeds and involved different cultural actors. In general, I observe:
In addition, I observe that mechatronic prototypes of most musical instruments have been built over the past half-century. Artists (from sound art or experimental music), researchers, or pioneering companies have created early versions, including wind, string, and percussion instruments, which are not described in this article. These instruments yield artistic results, and several musicians have used them for diverse audiences. Thus, we are no longer in the early years, but rather in a sort of “growth” phase: mechatronic pianos and hyperorgans have gained a solid technical foundation, tradition, and audience/users; the experimental music world has done the same, without being tied to one specific instrument; and at the same time, companies—especially in the last 15 years—have been cautiously attempting to bring new mechatronic instruments to market (see my article on the current state of mechatronic instruments).
The pioneering phase—during which new, computer-controlled instruments were first built and tested—is now over. In the current growth phase, the key is to bring together instrument makers, companies, musicians, sound artists, research centers, and audiences (communities). Exactly which players depends on regional strengths. We need to move away from the (laboratory-like, experimental) pioneering spirit in which a single research group, arts organization, or company focuses on mechatronic developments and works in relative isolation. For example, a great deal of feedback and evaluation material (from musicians, artists, and audiences) can be gathered by looking back over the past half-century of mechatronic instruments and sound installations. A more social, holistic view of the development of computer-controlled instruments is needed to achieve a meaningful experience of new music/sound art with mechatronic instruments in the future. Don’t forget, either, that this entire mechatronic evolution is taking place in the background. For 50 years now, the dominant form of music (technology) has been digital audio, which is easy to transmit (via the internet) and to play through speakers. That is where 99.99% of the funding and attention for the music and sound art sector goes. Greater collaboration among “mechatronic” cultural actors is therefore also desirable.
(version: June 8th 2026, Hans Roels)