Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?

[chysn]

your bass part was very Baroque-like and Bachian.  I suspect there's some influence?

Good catch; the specific reference near the end is his two-part invention in A minor.

As for the scoring/writing skills being a matter of "proving something" - not at all.  I simply meant that I'm 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.  I value personal skills far more than the ability to press buttons and tap screens.

Definitely! Notation software isn't a time-saving convenience. At least, it never was for me. It takes me every bit as long to use software as to write by hand. But the accuracy is better, transposition is effortless, playback can be used for recording, and music can be moved all over the place without having to rewrite it.

I used Finale for many years, but recently switched to MuseScore2. MuseScore2 is a brilliant project, and pretty much makes spending hundreds of dollars on Finale unjustifiable.

[Sacred Synthesis]

My wife was given Finale by her school system, where she teaches music to young children.  She found it terribly daunting and therefore never applied herself to it.  After deleting it, I chose MusicScore instead, because it was free and seemed fairly simple.  I've fooled around with it with some success, and can fully appreciate the value of a nice polished professional-looking score.  But now you say there's a MusicScore2?  Is it a substantial improvement over the previous one? 

This is one area I do need to develop some additional skills, which would allow me to score my own compositions.  Plus, it would also allow me to help out my wife with her job.  I'm the occasional accompanist who bails her out of difficult situations (since she let her piano skills fade away), and being able to also score some of her songs just might make me into Mr. Wonder-Husband!

[chysn]

But now you say there's a MusicScore2? Is it a substantial improvement over the previous one?

If you mean MuseScore, which you probably do, then yes, version 2 is a huge improvement. The original version was still well behind commercial software like Finale, and MuseScore 2 closes that gap in terms of capabilities. A lot. Also, I much prefer MuseScore's interface. Finale has all these windows floating around as Palettes, and they constantly need to be moved out of the way. MuseScore mise en places the whole thing, so it's all easy to get to. I'm a big fan, and I've never looked back.

being able to score some of her music might just make me into Mr. Wonder-Husband!

I'm sure she thinks you're that already.

[Sacred Synthesis]

If you mean MuseScore, which you probably do, then yes, version 2 is a huge improvement.

You got me there!  That shows how hard I worked with it - I didn't even get the name right!

[Sacred Synthesis]

I'm sure she thinks you're that already.

Oh, the sarcasm there is just oozing.

Anyway, I'll have to take a look at MuseScore2.  Thanks for the advice.

[Chaparral]

I think this is a great topic. It makes us consider what we mean by concepts like Repertoire (how rigid is it) and Synthesiser. For my 'fourpenneth' I would suggest that written music was a way of composing that was adopted because we could not record sounds. A score is a rigid framework that dictates some of the parameters of music, whilst some freedoms are left up to the performer. When I write sounds for my Prophet12 I am attempting to prepare my instrument for a performance that operates within the musical textures I have pre prepared, but I make great use of performance controls which take the programmed sounds to the edge sonically. I believe that another performer could use a different synthesiser to make a new version of one of my pieces and keep the integrity of the harmonic, melodic and expressive forms, but this new version would sound less like my piece than would be considered normal for more traditional instruments.
 So I guess I fall on the 'There can be a repertoire for solo synthesiser Jim, but not as we know it' side of the discussion. ;-)

[Sacred Synthesis]

I would give this last piece as an example:

[AdamPloof]

I really enjoyed that piece. Thanks for sharing.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Your welcome.

[chysn]

Some thoughts from Subotnick relevant to this topic, throughout the interview, but particularly at the beginning:

[Sacred Synthesis]

I would agree at this point that old music should be played on the instruments it was meant for, and new instruments should have new compositions of their own.  I don't at all care for classical music of previous centuries performed on synthesizers.  That always sounds displaced, irreverent, and terribly artificial to me.  My original intention here was to propose new music of a classical sort for the synthesizer - new classical music for a new instrument. 

The synthesizer has unfortunately been relegated almost entirely to rock, jazz, dance, and other popular styles especially popular among young people.  I would like to see serious keyboard compositions created by trained musicians for solo synthesizer, without the inclusion of sequencers, drum machines, large amounts of effects, multi-tracking, and so on.  This is one type of synthesizer music that does not presently exist, and I would love to see that change.  So, I'm only suggesting the addition of something to the synthesizer's repertoire, not the exclusion of anything.

[chysn]

Not in this interview, but another one, Subotnick said that he didn't want to write the sort of music that Beethoven wrote because he didn't believe that he could add to that conversation. He wanted to stake out his own territory.

And he did. He's a trained composer, widely considered to be a serious and influential composer, and Silver Apples of the Moon is a cornerstone, a common fixture in music history courses.

So I'd like one simple question addressed: why does sequencer use disqualify Silver Apples of the Moon as part of the solo synthesizer repertoire?

[Sacred Synthesis]

All of my comments on this topic have to do with keyboard music.  I'm not hiding, denying, or apologizing for the fact.  Please understanding that I'm not preaching something here; I'm suggesting the addition of what clearly is a gaping vacuum in the synthesizer repertoire.  I would like to see a body of synthesizer music composed for, and performed on, keyboard and pedalboard synthesizer.  That I'm speaking of something similar to sacred and classical organ music should be obvious by now, as is the fact that this new synthesizer music could easily be performed on a church organ, and also arranged for harpsichord and piano.  Regardless of all that, I'm speaking of true synthesizer compositions that use traditional triggering mechanisms - keyboard and pedalboard.

So, why no sequencer (presuming you mean one previously programmed, rather than one used as a modulation controller)?  Simply because it's another type of instrument that is triggered mechanically.  It lacks both a keyboard and a keyboard performer who is expressively playing each note with the arm, hand, fingers, toes, and heels.

Subotnick's music already exists, right?  Synthesizer music with sequencers, drum machines, and tons of effects already exists, right?  It exists in mass volumes and will continue to be produced.  Well, I'm suggesting something new, something in addition to what already exists.

When you or someone else asks why I'm excluding sequencers, my only answer is, "Who's excluding anything at all?"  Meaning, it all already exists!  All I'm speaking of here is adding something new - a simpler and purer form of synthesizer music. 

Chysn, if you really want to know what exactly I have in mind, it's precisely the type of music that's on my YouTube channel.  That's it, plain and simple.  My only intention here is to encourage and discuss the creation of a large repertoire of this sort of music - composed for and performed on synthesizer, light on technology and heavy on classical modes of music, and excelling in the elements of melody, harmony, and counterpoint.

[Sacred Synthesis]

This thread is certainly derived from my own views of the synthesizer music that already exists.  What I hear is volumes of material that leans extremely heavily on technology, to the point of sounding mechanical and impersonal.  For example, the constant presence of pounding drum machines and syncopated rhythms gives the music a forced and tightly controlled quality - I would call it an enslaved unnaturalness - that I personally find to be the antithesis of beauty.  Tons of this stuff exists, for those who like it.  What I find lacking is a type of synthesizer music that breathes easily because of its freedom from exaggerated rhythm, that is sweet, melodious, and yet powerful, due to its proficient use of harmony and dynamics. 

Again, I'm not forming a militia to go door-to-door confiscating sequencers.  I only want to add something unique that I find lacking.

[chysn]

I can't get past the idea that a "synthesizer repertoire" would optimize the synthesizer's idiosyncrasies. As you note, there's no shortage of such music.

If music would be equally at home on an organ or a piano, then it is "keyboard repertoire." There's no shortage of that kind of music, either.

I do not understand this vacuum of which you speak.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Whew.  Let's call a truce.  I didn't intend to start a debate, but only to propose an idea.  I've tried to explain it so many times and in so many ways, so that there's little more I can add.  If you care to, listen to my channel once in a while.  That's exactly what I mean.     

[chysn]

I can think of a ton of artists that I think do what you're talking about. Harmony and melody with synthesizers. Stuff like Vangelis, Kitaro, Yanni. But I'm pretty sure you've heard of these guys and might already have thoughts on their genre.

Edit: And "calling a truce" implies that there's some fighting going on. I don't see that happening. Imagine that I'm interested in the topic and am reaching for clarity.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I realize that.  There's no war going on here.  I use 'truce" as a hyperbole.  You and I get along fine and we have for years now.  But I've said all I can and sound like a broken record.  Rather than justify the idea here over and over, I was intending more to discus and develop it.  But I seem to be stuck in the original post phase, still trying to explain the simple idea.  I would say, if there's a problem, it's that the idea is so simple.

Regarding the composers you mentioned - yes, they are slightly similar to what I have in mind.  But again, I'm speaking of technology-light solo synthesizer keyboard music.  I wouldn't describe their music at all in that way.  They rely heavily on either multi-tracking or an ensemble.

[chysn]

You may be the only artist who has ever despaired of doing something unique.

[Sacred Synthesis]

The only thing I'm despairing of is trying to explain this!  And I'm already doing what I'm proposing, but I'd like to expand and improve on it.  Hence, I proposed it here as a topic of discussion.