Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?

Sacred Synthesis

Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« on: April 27, 2016, 08:57:34 PM »
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 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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  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.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 09:29:19 PM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2016, 11:23:42 PM »
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.

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2016, 05:14:15 AM »
Quote
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?

If you think of the synthesizer as a keyboard instrument, it inherits repertoire in the same way that the pianoforte inherited from harpsichord and organ. The piano displaced the harpsichord as a domestic instrument because it (the piano) sounded better and was more expressive, and the piano had a huge body of playable music before it was even invented.

Composers took advantage of the piano's strengths until guys like Beethoven and Chopin totally blew the roof off the thing's potential. In less than a hundred years, there was a real piano repertoire.

A real instrument repertoire takes full advantage of an instrument's capabilities. It's not fair to exclude specific synthesizer idioms like sequencing, looping, and non-keyboard control from the definition of "repertoire." It's like asking, in 1750, "Will we ever get a real pianoforte repertoire that doesn't use things like dynamics and those crazy-low notes?" Asking the question this way, and accepting the premise, seems designed to require a negative answer.
Prophet 5 Rev 4 #2711

MPC One+ ∙ MuseScore 4

www.wav2pro3.comwww.soundcloud.com/beige-mazewww.github.com/chysnwww.beigemaze.com

he/him/his

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2016, 09:31:47 AM »
Goodness gracious.  By posing the idea as a question, I had expected to generate a discussion, not a refutation and a rebuke.  Ah well.  The proper place for musical ideas is not on a synth forum, but in a music room.  My error.

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2016, 10:09:57 AM »
Goodness gracious.  By posing the idea as a question, I had expected to generate a discussion, not a refutation and a rebuke.  Ah well.  The proper place for musical ideas is not on a synth forum, but in a music room.  My error.

But just because we don't necessarily agree on each aspect (although at least in my view it doesn't even have that much to do with any sort of agreement), it doesn't make it less of a discussion. My point was not so much taking sides, but rather to consider the different aspects of a synthesizer and its multiple uses as well as possibilities. In other words: if anything, your post proved to me that Chowning was not too far off by calling one synthesizer a plethora of instruments, of which you picked one. I'm not judging that decision, I'm just observing it, that's all.

In addition to what chysn wrote, I would add that as soon as a keyboard is involved you find yourself in the traditional line of keyboard instruments, from the harpsichord to the DX-7 if you like. One exception is of course the mono synth, which is conceived as a single voice, very unlike traditional keyboard instruments, but rather related to the human voice. The problem is, if you make the keyboard the common denominator, the genuine aspects of synthesis get somehow pushed back. You tried to make up for that by referring to the now somewhat canonized concept of analog subtractive synthsis. But in the broader sense that's an almost arbitrary focus. - Well, it's not arbitrary in the sense that you are referring to a widely accepted concept that proved to be immensely successful, so don't get me wrong here. But what I mean is that for every voiced preference in favor of subtractive synthesis you'll probably find a voice asking, "But what about additive synthesis," "what about frequency modulation," "what about granular synthesis," and so on. And who determines what of those options can serve better in terms of constituting a repertoire or canon?

What your example showed - and I'd like this to be understood as just a passionless observation - is that you can obviously only arrive at something like a repertoire at the price of exclusion (which is no news with regard to the whole art history) - the exclusion of non-traditional notation systems, performance based art, atonal music, or in general everything that couldn't have been done in the centuries before the advent of the synthesizer, since the keyboard is only one way to equip a synthesizer and the musical tradition you're referring to (from Bach to Melia) is only one way of utilizing a synthesizer.

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2016, 11:14:07 AM »
Huh. I thought it was a pretty good discussion. Nobody's rebuking, and any refutation isn't for its own sake, but is there to carry the discussion forward. It's not unreasonable to ask that assumptions be defended. And this all seems pretty respectful.

On the Run. All over the internet, folks want their sequencers to play On the Run. Eight notes. Looped. Sequenced. Played really fast. It's a thing people play, and provide tutorials about. Absolutely part of the solo synthesizer repertoire. If it doesn't count, then why?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2016, 11:15:47 AM by chysn »
Prophet 5 Rev 4 #2711

MPC One+ ∙ MuseScore 4

www.wav2pro3.comwww.soundcloud.com/beige-mazewww.github.com/chysnwww.beigemaze.com

he/him/his

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2016, 08:26:49 AM »
Just to be clear, my original point wasn't to pass judgment on popular synthesizer music; it wasn't to say anything at all about any synthesizer music.  Nor is it my interest to go door-to-door, confiscating sequencers and drum machines or the music made with such devices.  I was saying nothing at all about such things.  My point exclusively regarded adding something quite new, something of which fans of popular synthesizer music are themselves quite critical.  And that is, traditional keyboard/pedalboard compositions written specifically for the synthesizer, which, because of a love, respect, and adherence to traditional modes of music theory and composition, would also sound excellent on other keyboard instruments, or even in non-keyboard arrangements.  This flexibility is not a flaw, weakness, or sign that the music has not been composed for a particular instrument and doesn't deserve credit for having been; rather, it's a sign of quality composing. 

In the synth forum universe, because I've just uttered the above forbidden narrow-minded offensive notions, this is where the discussion quickly goes (and I've been through this a hundred times): 

"Okay, Sacred Synthesis, you elitist absolutist fascist snob (No, I'm not exaggerating one bit; I've been called all of these things for expressing my "radical" [i.e. traditional] views).  But what is music?  What is sound?  What is noise?  What is a keyboard?  What is a synthesizer?  Who says a synthesizer even needs a keyboard?  And who says synthesizer noise isn't music?  Noise is music and music is noise!"

Fellas, this is where I have to unapologetically level with you.  I've called it aesthetical relativism.  If we cannot have a common vocabulary, if the essential terms of our discussions remain undefined, then there really is no point in communicating, then communication is actually impossible, and even education itself is only a fantasy.  If you guys would prefer to go around and around with discussions that deny clear and specific meanings to such terms as "music," "sound," and "noise," then you can enjoy your Oh-so-sophisticated discussions without me.  If every time we strike up such a discussion, we are dragged back to the same old relativism in which even the most basic concepts are defended as undefinable, then - sorry - I'm moving on.  There's much good to be done in life, even while some folks would prefer the pedantic idleness of getting bogged down every day with the ABCs.  Not I.  I'm more interested in the DEFs.

When I use the term "music," I mean that which makes use of the traditional elements of music in an organized fashion - melody, harmony, counterpoint, and rhythm.  When I use the term "sound," I mean that which does not make use of the traditional elements of music in an organized fashion, but uses the same medium - the vibrating of air molecules which are then received in our ear drums.  And when I use the term "noise," I mean a type of sound that is in some way unpleasant to hear.  In other words, "sound" is a neutral term that allows for non-musical material that is not especially caustic or irritating.  Sound can be quite enjoyable, and I think it would be a most helpful term in our discussions, rather than forcing the term "music" to include everything and anything, so that the term becomes quite meaningless.

This is not to deny that a degree of vagueness or subjectivism exists in these notions, nor that interpretations can somewhat vary.  It's only to deny that such vagueness and subjectivism are absolute, extreme, and unresolvable. 

Undoubtedly, I've offended some with my fascist rhetoric.  Pardon me, but for the purpose of climbing and staying out of the endless bottomless bog of relativism, I wanted to clarify at least what I mean whenever I use the above terms.  If you strongly disagree with my definitions - so be it and God love you.  But I guess there's no point in our discussing matters.  However, at least you can understand what I mean when I write.  And that would amount to some degree of progress in forum communication.

« Last Edit: May 05, 2016, 12:39:55 PM by Sacred Synthesis »

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1040
Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2016, 09:46:50 AM »
Calm down, friends! Seems like every time I take a break from the forum you guys end up fighting. Any chance things could calm down again?

I just found this video today demonstrating a church organ. It could be that Katerina Chrobokova's dress is a bit too modern for churches in general. But the video clearly shows how a church organ works and how an immense sound it can produce. I can certainly see the quest that Sacred synthesis is on and I look forward to see it realized with synthesizers!
https://youtu.be/_4a2jkooXdE

Also I find the original posts quest for synthesizer pieces a great idea. So just go for it!
#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2016, 10:57:07 AM »
Thanks, Dslsynth.  I'm perfectly calm - passionate and determined, but calm.

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2016, 11:02:16 AM »
from another forum I have come across a little book "Pioneers of universal music" by Dalibor Dragojevic which can be downloaded here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6oLY4Ny_LBTMmFDVF9JRksxYWM/view?usp=sharing

I have started reading it and it's a good read, it made me think about this thread so I thought I would post a link to it here,


Sacred Synthesis

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2016, 11:18:56 AM »
Is it possible to give a summary of the book and the conclusions of the author?

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2016, 11:26:25 AM »
Interesting topic.  If I understand the point correctly, I don't think synth music can ever be standardized really.  Though a certain segment of it certainly could be-but we would need to name it somehow.  Maybe something like "Traditional acoustic origin synthesizer sounds".  When I think "what does a synth sound like", I do have a core set ideas that pop into my head.   If you took all the patches we all have accumulated in each of our instruments and put them in one big pool- I bet there will be a good 20 or so patches that make up the vast mode (most commonly occurring).  But these sounds are not usually acoustic in origin.  But they are certainly familiar and repeated thru the years.   That's why most  polysynth demos sound so similar.   I'm mean, we all know the sounds I'm talking about, and they are usually quite similar.   Ironically,  these are the sounds I personally use the least and I'm just one opinion.  I'm sure we each have our bias, so how do we go about agreeing on a standard?

I agree with what someone mentioned here already, that perhaps traditional piano or organ scores would be a good starting point to drive the sound that is selected to be the standard.   For example- Sacred Synthesis I'm guessing would lean to having traditional instrument sounds if he were to pick his top 20 patches.  That approach actually seems to make the most sense to me because it would be most applicable to most existing published music.   Though I confess, if I made a book, it'd probably end up being 20 species of birds instead ;)  But such use  of bird sounds would be limited obviously.  So scores would need to be developed around using traditional acoustic sounds imo.  Such scores could be arranged in a book and the book would start with patch pages- in which perhaps 20 defined sounds (lets say from the synthesizer cookbook) were spelled out.  This concept would be like the orchestral scores that list all the needed instruments at the beginning: horns, harp, violas, violin, cymbals, etc...
 
I could see where such a book might be beneficial to a synthesist (assuming they were a keyboard player and could read music) to have some of book that might define certain sounds.  Why not?  I mean exactly such books exist for electric guitar for example- where the book that starts off defining a few standardized tones. 

I think what has happened instead of published music anymore, and mainly due to the in the internet age, is that there's a good amount of traditional music already done on synth that can serve as a guide.  Maybe there is just less need anymore?  I suppose going back to Wendy Carlos we might have a good starting point if this were to be pursued.
Sequential/DSI Equipment: Poly Evolver Keyboard, Evolver desktop,   Pro-2, Pro-3, OB6, P-12,
 

https://Soundcloud.com/wavescape-1

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2016, 11:51:18 AM »
Good points. 

I'm not theorizing about the old Carlos method of setting classical works to synthesizer.  Personally (and this is a change for me), I don't care for the sound of - for example - Baroque music set to synthesizer.  I'm theorizing only about new compositions.

As for scoring the music, it isn't a problem in the least.  The music is all score-capable, and even the sounds can be approximated with notes such as, "violin-like sound," "oboe-like sound," or "organ-like sound."  You might object that this will force the range of sounds into the acoustic or traditional instrument domain, and that's partially (and happily) true, but not necessarily.  I would use such sound descriptions as only giving a general sense of the tone, leaving room for alterations by the performer.  Besides, this is often the case in classical music.  For example, Bach's organ works contain only occasional and vague references to how the organ should be registrated.  He presumes that the organist knows how to registrate properly, based on the music, but this also allows for a flexibility of registration.  This is easily demonstrated by listening to the different registrations used by different organists performing the same works.

The idea I've proposed is much easier to achieve than folks apparently think.  The problems that have been posed simply don't exist.  You design a body of synthesizer tones with exceptional musical potential, compose pieces that suit these tones, score the music, and then add notes to describe the general tones used, just as scores contain performance, dynamic, and tempo notes.  Hence, a new solo synthesizer repertoire is born, and one that is uniquely musical in the traditional sense.  All that I'm doing is resisting the tendency of the synthesizer to lure the composer/performer into the usual synthesizer domain - that of excessive gadgets and sound effects where technology dominates and pure and simple musicality suffers.  In a sense, I'm trying to humanize the synthesizer with the aid of traditional music.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 03:05:16 PM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2016, 12:46:51 PM »
Is it possible to give a summary of the book and the conclusions of the author?

Well I havn't read it all yet, I'm not sure there will be a conclusion even when I have.

It is just a history of pioneering synth users, a pretty interesting read.

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2016, 11:47:16 AM »
In my mind, such a repertoire would take full advantage of the unique capabilities of synthesizers, and therefore couldn't be played on other keyed instruments (at least not without some degree of compromise to the intended composition).  Envelopes could expand and contract, filters could open and shut, oscillator voices could be faded in and out, waveforms changed, maybe even presets switched between.  All in real time, as you play the keys.  These features would be incorporated into the fabric of the songs themselves, and would be notated (somehow) into the sheet music.

Of course, any requirement could potentially exclude the piece from being performed on certain synths, so you'd want to stick pretty close to the standard features set present on most subtractive synths.  You could hypothetically have a composition which takes full advantage of one specific synth, say "Aria for Minibrute in C-Sharp," but that seems rather contrary to the spirit of this whole idea.

I can't really think of any good examples.  There's the first part of this piece by Nihls Frahm.  He's mostly fiddling with a chorus, but the effect is similar; the basic timbre of the song changes as he plays.  He even changes presets at one point, but generally he morphs his sounds gradually, maintaining a similar tempo and tone throughout, so none of the transitions are too radical.  Alternately, I can imagine something more akin a complex piano concerto, with various movements, and the voice of the synth changing on the fly, sometimes slowly, other times shifting quickly and dramatically.  Certainly this is far from my current songwriting capabilities, and in fact I'm not entirely sure anything like this has ever been done at a high level.

Difficulties would be:
1) Music culture as a whole;  The spectrum of musical tastes is so incredibly vast in our globalized culture, it would be hard to find agreement on what should be adopted as a "standard."
2)Synthesist culture: I've always gotten the sense that most of us are self-taught hobbyists who can't read music notation to begin with.  The true musicians (in the traditional sense) seem to be pianists who have expanded their repertoire into synths.  There really doesn't seem to be a traditional educational "path" into synthesis that I have encountered (but there absolutely should be!).  Most everything I now know has been learned through simple trial and error, as well as random tips and ideas picked up on message boards, youtube and the like.
3) Lack of standardization in equipment.  With what I describe above, there would be a huge amount of variation between performances, simply because, due to every synth being unique, there would be a fairly high amount of interpretation required in reading the notation. 

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2016, 12:31:51 PM »
You've done an excellent job of demonstrating the need for many of the ideas in my original post.  Indeed, it would have to be a different type of synthesizer music, and that's precisely what I proposed.  It's entirely capable of being scored because it avoids the more radical characteristics of the synthesizer.

The predictable argument against this idea is that it would not take full advantage of the complexity of the synthesizer.  Absolutely; that's my point, and I don't see this at all as a limitation, but more as a liberation from a norm.  I would put it this way instead: such new synthesizer music would not be musically hindered by the elaborateness of the technology; it would be free to focus on pure music and those sounds that best serve such pure music.  In other words, I consider the complexity of the synthesizer to often have the unfortunate effect of luring synthesists away from the more traditional forms of music that could be made.  I've proposed resisting this effect and exploring the synthesizer in a new way.

The fact that the radical sounds of the synthesizer can be produced is no reason to feel that they must be produced.  Most synthesists are already constantly using them, and many have used them for decades, so why not look elsewhere for something new and fresh?  And why must synthesizer music, in order to be regarded as true and genuine synthesizer music, make use of such sounds and noises?  Could there not be another approach, one that utilizes the synthesizer in its less radical capacity and, therefore, produces material that resembles traditional keyboard music?  Actually, this would be radical.

This thread already seems old and wearisome to me.  I don't want to carry on about something; I'd rather shut my mouth and do it.  Hence, I'm not going to make an effort to defend my idea.  I've stated it, and that's more than enough.  So, if you'd like examples, see my Youtube channel.  The more recent pieces are prime examples of what I have in mind, such as this one, which can be easily scored:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azcDglUP7sE 
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 07:54:17 AM by Sacred Synthesis »

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2016, 02:16:08 AM »
The more recent pieces are prime examples of what I have in mind, such as this one, which can be easily scored:

If you're tired of this conversation anyway, I won't worry about nudging it off-topic a little bit.

Are you scoring your stuff now, either with pencil-and-paper or software? If software, what do you use? If pencil, have you tried any software? This is a topic near to my heart, because I love the notation process, far more than recording.
Prophet 5 Rev 4 #2711

MPC One+ ∙ MuseScore 4

www.wav2pro3.comwww.soundcloud.com/beige-mazewww.github.com/chysnwww.beigemaze.com

he/him/his

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2016, 08:16:39 AM »
Your question, Chysn, is definitely on-topic.

I haven't scored my synthesizer music because, thus far, it's all been improvisational, but I've scored many organ compositions (by hand, naturally).  The two are almost identical on paper.  The synthesizer pieces would require only an extra bit of fussing, together with sound notes. 

You've probably seen organ scores: from the bottom up, a bass staff for the pedal line, then paired bass and treble staves for the keyboard parts.  This is nearly perfect for synthesizer.  In most cases, changes from one synthesizer to another can be scored within the two paired staves, since in organ music there are regular changes of manuals.  There probably will be occasions when another staff or two are needed, such as when there is a solo synthesizer part.  All of this is quite workable on paper.  And as for changes in sounds - again, this is already normal with organ music.  Notes are simply added over the staves at the point of change.

All of my scoring thus far has been done by hand on paper.  I'm a firm believer in developing skills, rather than relying on computers for everything.  Hence, I can score well, and I also have excellent script handwriting - yet another abandoned art.  The only computer program I've used so far is Musicscore.  I honestly haven't made much of an effort with it, but I will when the time comes.

I'd like to some how do a demonstration of all this for the forum.  It would include a page of composed music, both recorded and scored.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 08:23:18 AM by Sacred Synthesis »

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2016, 08:55:11 AM »
Your question, Chysn, is definitely on-topic.

That's good, because I really like that part of the topic.

Quote
You've probably seen organ scores: from the bottom up, a bass staff for the pedal line, then paired bass and treble staves for the keyboard parts.  This is nearly perfect for synthesizer.

It is, and it's almost how I do it; except I don't have a paired staff system because I compose for monosynths only. Usually the scores have between 3 and 5 parts: for three-part compositions it's usually one bass part and two treble parts; five-part compositions usually have two bass parts, with one of them being a drone, or pad point.

Quote
All of my scoring thus far has been done by hand on paper.  I'm a firm believer in developing skills, rather than relying on computers for everything.  Hence, I can score well, and I also have excellent script handwriting - yet another abandoned art.  The only computer program I've used so far is Musicscore.  I honestly haven't made much of an effort with it, but I will when the time comes.

Sure, skills must be developed. I studied all the best notation tomes and wrote music by hand for about ten years before moving to computer. At some point, there's nothing more to prove, and the benefits of software notation just outweigh everything else. I still keep a score pad around for quickly getting ideas down.

Quote
I'd like to some how do a demonstration of all this for the forum.  It would include a page of composed music, both recorded and scored.

Well, it's not a thorough demonstration, but I do have a bound pair of score-and-music available. The score is attached, and the music is at https://soundcloud.com/beige-maze/a-boy-and-his-dog.

But as you can see, this is music written specifically for a certain set of synthesizer parts. Maybe not a "repertoire," but it's somewhat idiomatic in that the legato passages are written with monosynth envelope/gate triggering in mind, and the dynamics are specifically chosen to affect the behavior of my Little Phatty patches.

I have also notated sequencer-based music that was designed to be put together on the fly using an oracle, sort of an experiment inspired by reading John Cage's lectures. The point of which is that some more synth-specific idioms are perfectly at home with traditional notation.
Prophet 5 Rev 4 #2711

MPC One+ ∙ MuseScore 4

www.wav2pro3.comwww.soundcloud.com/beige-mazewww.github.com/chysnwww.beigemaze.com

he/him/his

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?
« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2016, 09:30:02 AM »
That was a great example.  You know, your bass part was very Baroque-like and Bachian.  I suspect there's some influence?

As for the scoring/writing skills being a matter of "proving something" - not at all.  I don't care to prove anything to any one.  I'm simply glad I had developed the abilities long before I started using a computer, and I would encourage others to do the same.  Using devices is fine, but I wouldn't want to be at all times dependent on them.   
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 10:03:04 AM by Sacred Synthesis »