In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Technology and Culture 44.3 (2003) 632-634



[Access article in PDF]
Analog Days: The Invention and Impact of the Moog Synthesizer. By Trevor Pinch and Frank Trocco. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002. Pp. xv+368. $29.95.

In the history of technology and in science and technology studies, "sound studies" have recently enjoyed some popularity. Hence a study on Robert Moog and the analog synthesizer is particularly welcome. Trevor Pinch, who, as a physics student, built his own synthesizer in the early 1970s, brings some biographical interest to the story. He combines this with his well-known conceptual and analytical expertise as well as his ability to do sound empirical research and to present the outcome in a way that is pleasurable to read.

In this very handsomely produced volume, Pinch and coauthor Frank Trocco deal with an electronic instrument combining simple waveforms in order to produce more complex sounds. They base their account to a large extent on interviews with engineers, musicians, and workers in small factories producing synthesizers, as well as salespeople. Among the key themes [End Page 632] are the innovation process of the analog synthesizer, described in terms of the social construction of technology, and the marketing of the synthesizer, emphasizing the theme of consumer as agent. The authors make use of such analytical concepts from the social sciences and anthropology as "boundary shifters" and "liminal entities," and they make it clear that the synthesizer can be seen as an instrument transgressing various boundaries—between science and art, between pop music and classical music, and between music and sound. Something similar goes for the human factor involved: engineers like Moog become musicians, musicians like Walter (later Wendy) Carlos become engineers, and other musicians like David van Koevering, who marketed the Minimoog, become salesmen.

Robert Moog, with a background in electrical engineering, came from a tradition of mass production and set out to build an instrument that could be used by every musician. On the Pacific Coast, Don Buchla, also working on a synthesizer and also an engineer by training, had a different vision. Regarding himself as an instrument maker and an artist, he showed little interest in business. Pinch and Trocco see Moog's and Buchla's synthesizers as examples of SCOT's "interpretative flexibility." Closure took place—when keyboard use à la Moog and contrary to Buchla prevailed—because most commercial musicians preferred their synthesizers with keyboards. In 1968, commercial breakthrough came with Walter Carlos's best-selling recording of "Switched-On Bach" using a Moog synthesizer.

As Pinch and Trocco point out, selling was also vital. In the case of the Minimoog, van Koevering—musician, novelty instrument maker, and sales genius—persuaded reluctant music-store owners to stock these devices. In this he was backed by young keyboardists who were persuaded that Minimoogs would enable them to become virtuoso soloists. Hence, in the development of the Minimoog, users played a key role. Pinch and Trocco tell the story of van Koevering's marketing exploits with humor and this goes also for their account of how David Borden, an avant-garde musician, fool-proofed the early Moog synthesizer equipment—an activity which today might be called beta testing. Ikutara Kakehashi, founder of Roland, came up with that name by looking through a U.S. telephone directory.

There are only minor quibbles with this engagingly written, thoroughly researched, well-conceptualized, and nicely produced book. As the authors often rely on long quotations gained from interviews with key actors, they could have dwelt a bit longer on the issue of their reliability. It would have also been useful to have introduced theoretical concepts like "boundary shifting" at the beginning of the book and then taken them up again in the context of their narrative. As it is, they introduce these concepts only in the conclusion. Although they have done a great job in the production of the book, the people at Harvard University Press could be asked why they insisted on having the authors keep their documentation to the utmost minimum. Would it really have increased production...

pdf

Share