Phew, that's a tough one. Let me try to work through this paragraph by paragraph.
This idea seems almost like a pipe dream. Every instrument has its repertoire. We speak of the organ or piano "literature," and by that is meant the more familiar or most famous pieces composed exclusively for the instrument. The church organ literature is vast, and every organist should know some of it, perhaps even from memory. But could there ever be a solo synthesizer literature? By "synthesizer literature" I mean compositions written exclusively for synthesizer (and for this discussion, I'm referring to keyboard pieces)? Could there ever be a substantial body of keyboard synthesizer compositions that were meant to be played with only one or two synthesizers from beginning to end, that required no multi-tracking, no looping, but only keyboard performance from beginning to end? I realize this could lead down all sorts of tangents, with some commenting about what constitutes "music," "noise is music and music is noise," What's wrong with looping?" and so on. Well, there's a humungous body of material including all of that, so there's no question about it. My question is, could there ever be a body of solo synthesizer compositions for keyboardists, something comparable to the organ and piano repertoire?
I don't believe so. If you take into account the historical context, two technological developments are quite significant for the latter half of the 20th century: the advancement of studio technology and synthesizers. With the former becoming an instrument within itself - first utilized by the avantgarde, then in the more popular context that is now mainstream with the ubiquitous laptop studio - the use of the latter can almost not be separated from it. The simplest example would be something like
Switched On Bach. So here you would artificially separate technological tools that went hand in hand with each other - historically speaking. The only thing I can think of that would come close to what you're asking for would be all-around entertainers with workstations, although even in that case not everything is entirely live. Second of all, that kind of music doesn't specifically need synthesizers as it typically hasn't been written with synthesizers in mind. And if you're looking for something that's as genuine as for example organ music, then every classical music falls flat, since organ music was written with the specific instrument in mind, just like string quartets or piano concertos were written for different purposes. The point is, none of these traditional instruments sound alike, so specific techniques and placements (as in instrumentation) have been developed. If you want the equivalent for a synthesizer, it either needs to be something that takes into account what only synthesizers can do, or - which is maybe more complicated - defining in the first place what kind of instrument a synthesizer is. With regard to the latter I'd say: many. I think it was John Bowen who brought that up in the context of FM synthesis that every synthesizer is in fact always many instruments, namely those you program. And it makes perfect sense if you think about how you can route certain controllers to particular parameters. Think of the possible destinations for aftertouch and expression pedals on a Prophet '08 for example. That way, you're basically programming (via software) a unique instrument with each patch. But that is only one example with regard to one particular instrument, which leads me to the next point.
I believe there could be, and it's been my interest to contribute to it, but sadly, there are various reasons that render it unlikely. First, I would mention the extreme commerciality of the synthesizer. It is part of a market that is forever discontinuing older instruments and introducing new ones. This means musical turbulence caused by competition between manufacturers that has one company after another trying to reinvent the instrument, or at least outdo the competition with inventiveness and constantly changing features.
Sure. That and the fact that most musicians who used synthesizers to perform music also chose what was available at a particular time for a particular budget. In the 1960s and 1970s this is very obvious. Not that much to choose frome around that time, and not at all many polys. Also, up to the digital revolution, those musicians who could afford it would mostly get the latest and most sophisticated equipment. As most musicians were not necessarily synthesists, the equipment was largely disposable, since the only thing that counted were the emulative capabilities. So you could argue, the more emulations, the more arbitrary the specific synths in terms of individual character, since the latter is not what you want if the synth should be equally good at anything.
I realize that all instruments go through stages of development, and this is a good thing. It's certainly the case with the piano and organ. But at some point, in order for the instrument virtuoso to arise, there has to be a leveling-off and a stabilization of an instrument. If pipe organ designers had ever sought to re-invent the organ year after year and to change even fundamental elements, including the keyboard, then there never would have been a J. S. Bach, nor his magnificent and massive organ literature.
It's not that people didn't try to improve those traditional instruments, but times were also much slower. What have been 100 years back then, is about a day today. So in today's world, Bach would have had to make artistic decisions in terms of the tools he'd like to utilize, just like anybody else. But most certainly he wouldn't have been the Johnny S. we know him for. That could only happen under particular cultural circumstances that can't be reproduced or repeated, since first of all the church doesn't play the same role as it did back then anymore and there are certainly many more instruments to choose from other than the choir, the orchestra, the organ, etc.
The problem maintains, though, even if you focus on the keyboard synthesizer exclusively - which leaves out many other synthesizers, which is not any less problematic: What is "the synthesizer" for which a specific music should be written? Plus: Isn't the synthesizer the non-traditional instrument per se? Can it even be canonized the same way as traditional instruments led to single genres and a dedicated literature?
The establishment of a synthesizer repertoire is dependent on this sort of stabilization, on a normalization of features and design. But of course, the market would resist this, and synthesists themselves are forever demanding new features. Variety is nice, but in this case, it keeps the synthesizer from acquiring a repertoire of serious keyboard music that could stand up to the works of the keyboard/perdalboard masters.
One advantage of the recent analog synthesizer revival has been the return or popularization of a standard set of features - the classic VCO, VCA, VCF, LFO, and four-stage envelope generator design. Some people see this as a sort of stagnation and feel that the synthesizer, by its nature, must remain an ever-evolving instrument. But I see this "stagnation" as a much needed stabilization that could allow a repertoire to develop.
Well, who is going to set the standards then with all the different types of synthesis available? I mean, it's mostly the professionals these days who make use of synths for scoring soundtracks and things like that, who wouldn't want to lack options.
But okay. Something that has stood the test of time as Dave always says is certainly subtractive synthesis as a kind of lowest common demoninator. That's a sort of standard with the components you've listed. In this case you're getting further and further away though from "the synthesizer," as you're exclusively focussing on an analog synth that utilizes subtractive synthesis with a keyboard. That's already a very specific device out of many, which leads to the next point.
Second, the very nature of the synthesizer renders a repertoire unlikely. By this I mean the sheer vastness of the instrument's sonic capability. It's strength is also a weakness. What does a synthesizer sound like? It sounds like anything and everything! How on earth does one create a distinctive repertoire when the very substance of music - the sound - has no bounds, when one can practically design any sort of sound and effect on a synthesizer? I would suggest an unpopular solution: the standardizing of patches. No, I'm not suggesting limits on sound design. I'm simply saying that the synthesist needs to master his or her ego for the advancement of music. Meaning, we must not be afraid to use and re-use certain sounds that are musically rich and effective. And when other synthesists suggest that we're lacking in variety and originality with our limited repertoire of sounds, politely tell them to take a hike! We're in pursuit of fine synthesizer music, not vain congratulations and awards for having eight million different sounds stored in our sound banks.
Now you're jumping back to "the synthesizer," although you had more or less only one of its incarnations in mind - the one that became popular since the Minimoog.
You follow a similar logic with the patches here. But in this case it gets more complicated, since we're entering an aesthetic discussion for which there is and can't be an ultimate guideline other than ideologies or world views. The uncertain variable in your equation is music or musicality, which is something each one of us would define differently. In the Middle Ages the tritone was Satan. With something like Musique concrète or futuristic instruments in mind, those aspects based on sheer intervals are laughable. And even that takes into account already historicized developments. And finally, there's all the microtonality outside of the so-called Western music. And furthermore, one could also argue that there are all these things outside of the actual aesthetic realm that play a big role too, like social impacts and so on. So based on these view points, it's going to be hard to come up with a clear definition of music or musicality, if it shouldn't end up being one particular genre in one particular tradition, which would be - at least in my view - diametrically opposed to what a synthesizer
can be.
Personally, I would love to see synthesists playing one synthesizer at a time and performing on it complete keyboard compositions from beginning to end - pieces that could be played on other keyboard instruments, but that are especially composed for the synthesizer. Marc Melia certainly comes to mind, but I'm speaking of looping-free compositions. He's at least close to what I have in mind, and his sounds have the potential. Anyway, this repertoire would certainly be helped along if synthesizers tended towards a larger size with full-length keyboards, and if the use of bass pedalboards became common as well.
But if current studio technology is to be ignored - and I would include things like looping here -, aren't you basically asking for an organ player surrounded by a particular type of synthesizers instead of traditional organs? First of all: What about all the people, who play in bands? Are they discarded? Second of all: If you are indeed asking for an organ player surrounded by a particular type of synthesizers, then this music has already been written, and it's most likely called organ music - same clothes, different color, as it would basically equal swapping the keys. It would only turn into something else if you treat the synthesizers for what they are, which brings us back to the dilemma at the beginning: What kind of an instrument is a synthesizer to begin with?
Eventually, you basically state an aesthetic preference for the kind of sounds Marc Melia utilizes. Again, that and the notion of the organist sum up to a very contingent interpretation of what a synthesizer can be. And I'm only pointing this out because you called this thread "Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?" - So, ex negativo, I would argue that you answered this question with "yes" by setting up a couple of rules and interpretations. But it is only based on these limitations that there could be one type of a repertoire, because as you say:
Synthesists have a special hunger for large amounts of equipment, for constant development of the instrument, for new ways to trigger notes and sounds, for constant experimentation, and for variety seemingly as an end in itself.
You try to reframe the above-mentioned limitation as something positive, which makes sense, but I would argue that this would only work with regard to technical questions, but maybe not aesthetic choices.
But what ultimately is the vision or goal of these? They can be useful and fascinating in some ways, but they also result in a monotony of change that leaves the synthesizer without a mature repertoire of its own.
And this ultimately touches upon aesthetic choices. The visions or goals behind experimentation (which is again something different for each of us) are pretty subjective. Part of it may be intellectual considerations, part of it personal experience, or simply intuition. Sure, things can get redundant, but that can also be part of an aesthetic agenda, which in itself is just as valid as any other. If I look at many current synthesists for example, young guys I know, people I've seen live or online, then there's certainly a movement that couldn't be any further away from what you're unfolding above. I mean, right now it's not only that modular systems are very strong, the music is also guided rather by a process itself instead of finishing something up, which challenges any concept of a work in the first place. Furthermore, and certainly on a larger scale than in the 1960s and 1970s, people seem to be ready to throw musical traditions overboard with the synthesizer these days, which is in many cases due to the absence of keyboards. So this can't be ignored either, especially if someone is interested in what could be described as a physiognomy of synthesizers, if that entails the question after what genuine synthesizer music would sound like. But it's a long discussion that has been going on ever since
Silver Apples of the Moon and
Switched On Bach had been released.