I've never played a Moog 15 or even the Vermona Perfourmer Mk II, so I can only respond in a general way. I think you know I would agree that, in modern synthesizers, complexity has become the main objective and quality and character of tone have become secondary. I think this is manifest in the annoying fact that I can seldom find in online synthesizer recordings the simple sorts of sounds that I like and use. This is one of the reasons it's difficult for me to judge whether or not I would like a particular new synthesizer - I simply don't hear the sorts of sounds I would like to hear and am forced to listen to sometimes hours of irritating synthesizer demos, in the hope that I might catch a tiny snippet of sound that is useful. How often can one find one or two sawtooths with a delayed vibrato playing a nice melody, or a pulse or two without filter modulation giving out a memorable tune, so that you can really hear the distinct voice of the instrument? It's the rarest thing. I find the typical synthesizer programs more often to be demonstrations of the instrument's and the synthesist's ability to pile on the maximum amounts of effects and modulation, as if the sound itself were the end of it all, and whatever music was made with it was incidental.
Again, I can't respond to whatever the author had in mind, but personally, it's the simpler more mellifluous sounds that shine for me, whereas the complex, busy, and caustic ones tend to effect me like a dentist's drill on a nerve or a jackhammer on a city street. And I think it goes without saying that most modern instruments are designed to serve and satisfy this infatuation with busy complexity.
Over the last few years, there has obviously been a slight change is this, though, with some instruments appearing that serve the interests of synthesists who share these views. BUT, this change has unfortunately included the appearance of the mini keyboard and the generally shrunken synthesizer. Arturia and Korg come to mind. The appearance of the Minimoog Model D, however, is a different matter, and it signifies something more meaningful than traditionalists being tossed the usual little mouthful of red meat that is, say, a Minibrute or a baby Odyssey. It's hard not to feel that some one has finally heard the more traditional musician who happens to play synthesizer. Hence, the discussions about "old" versus "new" technology and "looking back" versus "moving forward" miss the larger point that the pure musician/synthesist has been heard. Not that a brand new instrument couldn't serve his or her needs if it were designed with the proper objectives in mind, but where does one see such full-sized instruments?
Traditional musicians tend to have an inherent appreciation for the past and not look to it with the embarrassment of the modernist. There's comfort with the familiar, with the tried and true, with that which has withstood the test of time. Like it or not, the Model D has superlatively withstood the test of time. And besides, some of us don't want to waste too much of our precious practice and composition time mastering yet another control panel and its annoying menus. Hence, it's good to return to something familiar.
I've not answered the question you asked me to, Paul. There's just too much that calls for reflection on the topic. But in response to the article and its author, I would say a genuine high-quality analog tone shines for me - whether the instrument is old or new - and especially if the particular sound has the virtue of simplicity. I'm entirely open to new instruments and designs if they serve the proper ends, but such new instruments are few and far between; or else, they look like they've been created for children or midgets. I think I could thoroughly enjoy playing an immaculate Model D, and I would say, yes, it would sound alive to me in a new way. I'm totally sympathetic to the author's viewpoint. And even though I don't foresee myself buying a new Model D, I'm all for the symbolism of an exact recreation.