Musical instrument classification


In organology, the study of musical instruments, many methods of classifying instruments exist. Most methods are specific to a particular cultural group and were developed to serve the musical needs of that culture. Culture-based classification methods sometimes break down when applied outside that culture. For example, a classification based on instrument use may fail when applied to another culture that uses the same instrument differently.
In the study of Western music, the most common classification method divides instruments into the following groups:

Classification criteria

The criteria for classifying musical instruments vary according to point of view, time, and place. The many different approaches consider aspects such as the physical characteristics of the instrument, the manner in which the instrument is played, the means by which the instrument produces sound, the quality or timbre of the sound produced by the instrument, the tonal and dynamic range of the instrument, the musical function of the instrument, and the place of the instrument in an orchestra or other ensemble.

Classification systems by their geographical and historical origins

European and Western

2nd-century Greek grammarian, sophist, and rhetorician Julius Pollux, in the chapter called De Musica of his ten-volume Onomastikon, presented the two-class system, percussion and winds, which persisted in medieval and postmedieval Europe. It was used by St. Augustine, in his De Ordine, applying the terms rhythmic, organic, and adding harmonic ; Isidore of Seville ; Hugh of Saint Victor, also adding the voice; Magister Lambertus, adding the human voice as well; and Michael Praetorius.
The modern system divides instruments into wind, strings and percussion. It is of Greek origin. The scheme was later expanded by Martin Agricola, who distinguished plucked string instruments, such as guitars, from bowed string instruments, such as violins. Classical musicians today do not always maintain this division, but distinguish between wind instruments with a reed and those where the air is set in motion directly by the lips.
Many instruments do not fit very neatly into this scheme. The serpent, for example, ought to be classified as a brass instrument, as a column of air is set in motion by the lips. However, it looks more like a woodwind instrument, and is closer to one in many ways, having finger-holes to control pitch, rather than valves.
Keyboard instruments do not fit easily into this scheme. For example, the piano has strings, but they are struck by hammers, so it is not clear whether it should be classified as a string instrument or a percussion instrument. For this reason, keyboard instruments are often regarded as inhabiting a category of their own, including all instruments played by a keyboard, whether they have struck strings, plucked strings or no strings at all.
It might be said that with these extra categories, the classical system of instrument classification focuses less on the fundamental way in which instruments produce sound, and more on the technique required to play them.
Various names have been assigned to these three traditional Western groupings:
  • Boethius labelled them intensione ut nervis, spiritu ut tibiis, and percussione;
  • Cassiodorus, a younger contemporary of Boethius, used the names tensibilia, percussionalia, and inflatilia;
  • Roger Bacon dubbed them tensilia, inflativa, and percussionalia;
  • Ugolino da Orvieto called them intensione ut nervis, spiritu ut tibiis, and percussione;
  • Sebastien de Brossard referred to them as enchorda or entata, pneumatica or empneousta, and krusta or pulsatilia ;
  • Filippo Bonanni used vernacular names: sonori per il fiato, sonori per la tensione, and sonori per la percussione;
  • Joseph Majer called them pneumatica, pulsatilia, and fidicina ;
  • Johann Eisel dubbed them pneumatica, pulsatilia, and fidicina;
  • Johannes de Muris used the terms chordalia, foraminalia, and vasalia ;
  • Regino of Prum called them tensibile, inflatile, and percussionabile.

Mahillon and Hornbostel–Sachs systems

Victor-Charles Mahillon, curator of the musical instrument collection of the conservatoire in Brussels, for the 1888 catalogue of the collection divided instruments into four groups and assigned Greek-derived labels to the four classifications: chordophones, membranophones, aerophones, and autophones. This scheme was later taken up by Erich von Hornbostel and Curt Sachs who published an extensive new scheme for classification in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie in 1914. Their scheme is widely used today, and is most often known as the Hornbostel–Sachs system.
The original Sachs–Hornbostel system classified instruments into four main groups:
  1. idiophones, such as the xylophone, which produce sound by vibrating themselves;
  2. membranophones, such as drums or kazoos, which produce sound by a vibrating membrane;
  3. chordophones, such as the piano or cello, which produce sound by vibrating strings;
  4. aerophones, such as the pipe organ or oboe, which produce sound by vibrating columns of air.
Later Sachs added a fifth category, electrophones, such as theremins, which produce sound by electronic means. Modern synthesizers and electronic instruments fall in this category. Within each category are many subgroups. The system has been criticized and revised over the years, but remains widely used by ethnomusicologists and organologists. One notable example of this criticism is that care should be taken with electrophones, as some electronic instruments like the electric guitar and some electronic keyboards can produce music without electricity or the use of an amplifier.
In the Hornbostel–Sachs classification of musical instruments, lamellophones are considered plucked idiophones, a category that includes various forms of jaw harp and the European mechanical music box, as well as the huge variety of African and Afro-Latin thumb pianos such as the mbira and marimbula.

André Schaeffner

In 1932, comparative musicologist André Schaeffner developed a new classification scheme that was "exhaustive, potentially covering all real and conceivable instruments".
Schaeffner's system has only two top-level categories which he denoted by Roman numerals:
  • I: instruments that make sound from vibrating solids:
  • * I.A: no tension ;
  • * I.B: linguaphones ;
  • * I.C: chordophones ; plus drums
  • II: instruments that make sound from vibrating air
The system agrees with Mahillon and Hornbostel–Sachs for chordophones, but groups percussion instruments differently.
The MSA of René Lysloff and Jim Matson, using 37 variables, including characteristics of the sounding body, resonator, substructure, sympathetic vibrator, performance context, social context, and instrument tuning and construction, corroborated Schaeffner, producing two categories, aerophones and the chordophone-membranophone-idiophone combination.
André Schaeffner has been president of the French association of musicologists Société française de musicologie.

Kurt Reinhard

In 1960, German musicologist Kurt Reinhard presented a stylistic taxonomy, as opposed to a morphological one, with two divisions determined by either single or multiple voices playing. Each of these two divisions was subdivided according to pitch changeability, and also by tonal continuity and continuous, making 12 categories. He also proposed classification according to whether they had dynamic tonal variability, a characteristic that separates whole eras as in the transition from the terraced dynamics of the harpsichord to the crescendo of the piano, grading by degree of absolute loudness, timbral spectra, tunability, and degree of resonance.

Steve Mann

In 2007, Steve Mann presented a five-class, physics-based organology elaborating on the classification proposed by Schaeffner. This system is composed of gaiaphones, hydraulophones, aerophones, plasmaphones, and quintephones, the names referring to the five essences, earth, water, wind, fire and the quintessence, thus adding three new categories to the Schaeffner taxonomy.
Elementary organology, also known as physical organology, is a classification scheme based on the elements in which sound production takes place. "Elementary" refers both to "element" and to something that is fundamental or innate. The elementary organology map can be traced to Kartomi, Schaeffner, Yamaguchi, and others, as well as to the Greek and Roman concepts of elementary classification of all objects, not just musical instruments.
Elementary organology categorizes musical instruments by their classical element:
ElementStateCategory
1Earthsolidsgaiaphonesthe first category proposed by Andre Schaeffner
2Waterliquidshydraulophones
3Airgasesaerophonesthe second category proposed by Andre Schaeffner
4Fireplasmasplasmaphones
5Quintessence/Ideainformaticsquintephones

Other Western classifications

Classification by tonal range

Instruments can be classified by their musical range in comparison with other instruments in the same family. These terms are named after singing voice classifications:
Some instruments fall into more than one category: for example, the cello may be considered either tenor or bass, depending on how its music fits into the ensemble, and the trombone may be alto, tenor, or bass and the French horn, bass, baritone, tenor, or alto, depending on which range it is played. In a typical concert band setting, the first alto saxophone covers soprano parts, while the second alto saxophone covers alto parts.
Many instruments include their range as part of their name: soprano saxophone, alto saxophone, tenor saxophone, baritone saxophone, baritone horn, alto flute, bass flute, bass guitar, etc. Additional adjectives describe instruments above the soprano range or below the bass, for example: sopranino recorder, sopranino saxophone, contrabass recorder, contrabass clarinet.
When used in the name of an instrument, these terms are relative, describing the instrument's range in comparison to other instruments of its family and not in comparison to the human voice range or instruments of other families. For example, a bass flute's range is from C3 to F6, while a bass clarinet plays about one octave lower.

Classification by function

Instruments can be categorized according to typical use, such as signal instruments, a category that may include instruments in different Hornbostel–Sachs categories such as trumpets, drums, and gongs. An example based on this criterion is Bonanni. He separately classified them according to geography and era.
Instruments can be classified according to the role they play in the ensemble. For example, the horn section in popular music typically includes both brass instruments and woodwind instruments. The symphony orchestra typically has the strings in the front, the woodwinds in the middle, and the basses, brass, and percussion in the back.

Classification by geographical or ethnic origin

Jean-Benjamin de la Borde classified instruments according to ethnicity, his categories being Black, Abyssinian, Chinese, Arabic, Turkish, and Greek.

West and South Asian

Indian

An ancient system of Indian origin, dating from the 4th or 3rd century BC, in the Natya Shastra, a theoretical treatise on music and dramaturgy, by Bharata Muni, divides instruments into four main classification groups: instruments where the sound is produced by vibrating strings ; instruments where the sound is produced by vibrating columns of air ; percussion instruments made of wood or metal ; and percussion instruments with skin heads, or drums.

Persian

Al-Farabi, Persian scholar of the 10th century, distinguished tonal duration. In one of his four schemes, in his two-volume Kitab al-Musiki al-Kabir he identified five classes, in order of ranking, as follows: the human voice, the bowed strings and winds, plucked strings, percussion, and dance, the first three pointed out as having continuous tone.
Ibn Sina, Persian scholar of the 11th century, presented a scheme in his Kitab al-Najat, made the same distinction. He used two classes. In his Kitab al-Shifa, he proposed another taxonomy, of five classes: fretted instruments; unfretted stringed, lyres and harps; bowed stringed; wind, other wind instruments such as the organ; and the stick-struck santur. The distinction between fretted and open was in classic Persian fashion.

Turkish

Ottoman encyclopedist Hadji Khalifa recognized three classes of musical instruments in his Kashf al-Zunun an Asami al-Kutub wa al-Funun, a treatise on the origin and construction of instruments. This was exceptional for a Near Eastern writer, most of whom, like Near Eastern culture traditionally and early Hellenistic Greeks, ignored the percussion instruments because it regarded them as primitive.

East and South-East Asian

Chinese

The oldest known scheme of classifying instruments is Chinese and may date as far back as the second millennium BC. It grouped instruments according to the materials they are made of. Instruments made of stone were in one group, those of wood in another, those of silk are in a third, and those of bamboo in a fourth, as recorded in the Yo Chi, compiled from sources of the Chou period and corresponding to the four seasons and four winds.
The eight-fold system of eight sounds or timbres, from the same source, occurred gradually, and in the legendary Emperor Shun's time it is believed to have been presented in the following order: metal, stone, silk, bamboo, gourd, clay, leather, and wood classes, and it correlated to the eight seasons and eight winds of Chinese culture, autumn and west, autumn-winter and NW, summer and south, spring and east, winter-spring and NE, summer-autumn and SW, winter and north, and spring-summer and SE, respectively.
However, the Chou-Li, an anonymous treatise compiled from earlier sources in about the 2nd century BC, had the following order: metal, stone, clay, leather, silk, wood, gourd, and bamboo. The same order was presented in the Tso Chuan, attributed to Tso Chiu-Ming, probably compiled in the 4th century BC.
Much later, Ming dynasty scholar Chu Tsai Yu recognized three groups: those instruments using muscle power or used for musical accompaniment, those that are blown, and those that are rhythmic, a scheme which was probably the first scholarly attempt, while the earlier ones were traditional, folk taxonomies.
More usually, instruments are classified according to how the sound is initially produced.

Indonesian

Classifications done for the Indonesian ensemble, the gamelan, were done by Jaap Kunst, Martopangrawit, Poerbapangrawit, and Sumarsam. Kunst described five categories: nuclear theme ; colotomic, the gongs; countermelodic; paraphrasing, subdivided as close to the nuclear theme and ornamental filling; agogic, drums.
R. Ng. Martopangrawit has two categories, irama and lagu, the former corresponds to Kunst's classes 2 and 5, and the latter to Kunst's 1, 3, and 4.
Kodrat Poerbapangrawit, similar to Kunst, derives six categories: balungan, the saron, demung, and slenthem; rerenggan ; wiletan, rebab and male chorus ; singgetan ; kembang, flute and female voice; jejeging wirama, drums.
Sumarsam's scheme comprises
  • an inner melodic group, divided as
  • * elaborating, gambang, pesindhen, celempung, suling );
  • * mediating, saron panerus; and
  • * abstracting, loud and soft metallophones ;
  • an outer circle, the structural group, which underlines the structure of the work;
  • and occupying the space outside the outer circle, the kendang, a tempo-regulating group.
The gamelan is also divided into front, middle, and back, much like the symphony orchestra.
An orally transmitted Javanese taxonomy has 8 groupings:
  • ricikan dijagur ;
  • ricikan dithuthuk ;
  • ricikan dikebuk ;
  • ricikan dipethik ;
  • ricikan disendal ;
  • ricikan dikosok ;
  • ricikan disebul ;
  • ricikan dikocok.
A Javanese classification transmitted in literary form is as follows:
  • ricikan prunggu/wesi ;
  • ricikan kulit ;
  • ricikan kayu ;
  • ricikan kawat/tali ;
  • ricikan bambu pring.
This is much like the pa yin. It is suspected of being old but its age is unknown.
Minangkabau musicians use the following taxonomy for bunyi-bunyian : dipukua, dipupuik, dipatiek, ditariek, digesek, dipusiang. The last one is for the bull-roarer. They also distinguish instruments on the basis of origin because of sociohistorical contacts, and recognize three categories: Mindangkabau, Arabic, and Western, each of these divided up according to the five categories. Classifying musical instruments on the basis sociohistorical factors as well as mode of sound production is common in Indonesia.
The Batak of North Sumatra recognize the following classes: beaten, blown, bowed, and plucked instruments, but their primary classification is of ensembles.

Philippines

The T'boli of Mindanao use three categories, grouping the strings with the winds together based on a gentleness-strength dichotomy, regarding the percussion group as strong and the winds-strings group as gentle. The division pervades T'boli thought about cosmology, social characters of men and women, and artistic styles.

African

West African

In West Africa, tribes such as the Dan, Gio, Kpelle, Hausa, Akan, and Dogon, use a human-centered system. It derives from 4 myth-based parameters: the musical instrument's nonhuman owner, the mode of transmission to the human realm, the making of the instrument by a human, and the first human owner. Most instruments are said to have a nonhuman origin, but some are believed invented by humans, e.g., the xylophone and the lamellophone.
The Kpelle of West Africa distinguish the struck, including both beaten and plucked, and the blown. The yàle group is subdivided into five categories: instruments possessing lamellas ; those possessing strings; those possessing a membrane ; hollow wooden, iron, or bottle containers; and various rattles and bells. The Hausa, also of West Africa, classify drummers into those who beat drums and those who beat strings,