(I’m not saying it isn’t)
On second thought, I kind of like the semiconductor angle, as it makes synthesizers quantum mechanics devices (TL;DR: semiconductors are proof that at least some of QM “works”).
But I still think it’s a mistake to exclude Bach as a synth nerd. Symphony composer-conductors are also synthesists, but an individual cello player usually isn’t. (But sometimes is)
OK.
“Anything that generates sound by means of semiconductor circuitry, excluding electronic organs.”
Why ? It would be perfectly possible to apply pitch modulation to a Hammond B3 (in fact … don’t they include vibrato already ?) and an LFO swept filter that was mechanical in nature, not using semiconductors, would be perfectly possible too.
Is the Motor Synth … a synth?
Yes
If you’re going to go that route, you need a definition that distinguishes synthesizer from electronic organ. If you don’t have one, I’m going to claim that anything you reckon to be a synthesizer is in fact an electronic organ … cancelling out your definition.
Emphasize: I have no axe to grind here, just playing the game of what definition can we come up with that works.
well the definition that pops up when you search is quite simple…
music definition of synthesizer - Bing
Basically it needs to be able to generate the waveforms itself , sampling the waveform is sampling, or playing back a recording and so not generating the waveform.
I don’t think we should be excluding this. But … there are no semiconductors here.
Hammond Novachord … “considered the worlds first polyphonic synthesizer” … but no semiconductors in 1941. We’re not excluding this are we ?
by that logic a wavetable synthesizer isn’t a synthesizer.
Since samplers are used as musical instruments and also generate audio signals electronically (from digital data) they clearly are synthesizers. 
That’s not what that says at all. It speaks about the method of which sound is generated (synthesis). Not that it has to be generated.
As I pointed out earlier, Iridium is definitely a synth , even if you load in samples into the OSCs, and it’s also a sampler :). Digitakt can load single cycle waveforms which then generates a tone that goes through methods of subtractive synthesis.
I think we’re learning that a definition is not as easy as might have been thought. Looking forward to refined definitions that make sense of
Does the word synthesizer have to encompass the entire history of the synthesizer? Including early proto synths that don’t fit the definition of 99.99% of today’s synths?
Perhaps not. But any definition that excludes them (that we’ve seen so far) just seems a bit arbitrary to me. (Subjective, I know)
I am getting the vibe that this debate is like the one where people argue if breakfast cereal counts as soup and whether or not hotdogs are sandwiches.
Just a reminder that words change their meanings over time and can have several definitions at once.
That is exactly what it’s saying.
But it doesn’t say anything about generating waveforms, it says “generate audio signal”. The digital data that represents a sample isn’t an audio signal. It’s digital data. An electric circuit then generates an audio signal using that data.
Are you trolling?
I think of the word “Synthesizer” in the broadest possible way, the definition of which is predicated upon the definition of the word “Synthesis”. Any device or collection of devices capable of synthesis is a synthesizer. One can then sub-categorize which type of synthesizer by analyzing its method of synthesis, i.e. subtractive, additive, frequency modulation, granular, wavetable, sample-based, etc.
What if, next week, someone showed a synthesizer that was based on hydraulic principles. Would you claim that was not a synthesizer because it was not semiconductor in nature ?
And what if that later became the dominant form of synthesis ? Proponents of the hydraulic form might decide that semiconductor synthesisers were a historical aberration, a mere precursor to the “true” form of synthesis, the hydraulic form ?
I honestly think (now I’ve considered it more) that the underlying technology is not the key thing. I just so happens, right now, with semiconductors, we can do a lot more than with any other underlying technology.
