It is now several weeks since Kevin McElhone, with his query about the
market for mechanical musical instrument, kicked off the current round
of discussion about the future of mechanical music.  The discussion has
constructively diverged from the narrow focus of market and 'value',
to such aspects as preserving the heritage, stimulating wider public
interest, and, inevitably, the future of specialist interest groups.
This is somewhat of a relief, as if all decisions were based solely on
the monetary value of an instrument, then the future of the latter
would definitely be in doubt.

There is no reason why people should not continue to enjoy experiencing
the 'musical' aspect of our interest within the framework of a society.
However, more than at any time in the past it is now those societies'
responsibility to safeguard the future of the instruments, arguably
their main objective.

Paul Bellamy raises the question of survival strategies of the various
interest-group societies.  For an informed analysis of the rise and
fall in membership of interest groups during the twentieth century,
one could do worse than read Robert Putnam's book, 'Bowling Alone,'
published in 1999.  Having an insight into the phenomenon doesn't
provide much in the way of answers, but does prevent us all beating
ourselves and each other up for the wrong reasons!  We can then address
the real challenges.

Organisations, like organisms, are subject to evolution.  They survive
if they adapt and become more efficient.  It's a dynamic state, not
static.  Survival of an organisation will depend not just on continuing
membership, but also on the provision made for encouraging succession,
and taking advantage of the opportunities thrown up by the evolving
environment rather than by pursuing decades-old policy.

Looking at instruments in terms of monetary value is very introspective.
Ensuring they will be available for another generation's appreciation
requires a more outward-looking approach.  Hurrah for Jean Nimal for
exploring this, and his fellow countrymen who devised a 'blown up'
model of an organ (Nancy Fratti take note!) to demonstrate the
principles of the mechanism to the public.  Whilst there are people
like these willing to experiment, there is hope.

Mechanical instruments stand a better chance of survival if viewed
as part of a larger, contemporary family of musical instruments,
rather than being relegated to the category of fascinating, but
defunct, antiques.  Musical boxes, for example, are not merely examples
of a self-playing instrument.  They are unique in that there is no
manually-played equivalent.

They may be few, but today there _are_ musicians (maybe we should be
thinking in terms of calling them that, rather than 'enthusiasts' or
'collectors') who see the potential of a mechanical instrument which
can be exploited in on-going creative activity.  (Check out Bjork for
a contemporary example using the disc musical box.)  Last century there
was Conlan Nancarrow.  (How will his music be performed 'live' if no
player pianos survive?)  If an instrument has relevance today, it has
a better chance of still being around tomorrow.

As contributors to the discussion have observed, there is a need
to archive the existing knowledge.  This will cater for a future
musicologist or historian, as much as a mechanic or 'enthusiast.'
Just like the challenges, the future of our interest is multi-faceted.
There must be few amongst us who cannot find their own part to play,
as an individual or collaborator, whether it is winkling out some
hitherto undiscovered manufacturing detail of our lovely instruments,
or infecting others by sharing the sheer joy of the music.  Think
outside the box, identify your niche and go do.

Alison Biden