Talk:Robert Moog/Archive 1

Photo

A photo of the man would make this article complete.

I can't help with the photo issue, but wanted to say thanks much to the page contributor who provided this comment in the "Life" section: "His end of life journey was captured using CaringBridge." The link to Mr. Moog's CaringBridge site is provided at the bottom of the main page and includes photos.

Theremin

Information added to the theremin section from the book: Albert Glinsky: Theremin Ether Music and Espionage, University of Illinois Press, 2000. Robert Moog wrote the foreword, including his experiences with the theremin. Please, could somebody proofread the theremin part (style), because I'm not a native English speaker. Best regards, Bernd —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.111.232.146 (talk • contribs) .

Pronunciation of Moog

I think just the pronunciation in the IPA is enough, without the admonishment not to mispronounce!

IPA pronunciation are to be given in [this way]not /that way/ (this is intended for detailing phonemes), check here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.181.219 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Daft"

"...although it sometimes took hours to set up the machine for a new sound"

This sounds a bit daft to me. Would it really take "hours" to set one of those initial Moog modular cabinets up? How many knobs and patch sockets were there on it, 40? The statement implies that limitations machine itself caused the inordinate time - I'd wager any delays were more due to musicians' inexperience with it, and not knowing what they were doing? Any thoughts?--feline1 05:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

From some personal experience, I can safely say that a basic patch takes only a few minutes, if that. (Around one's neck is a great place to store patch cords for immediate use, btw.) However, for a really-complex patch on a large system, such as some of those set up by W. Carlos, it could take hours to tweak. Nevertheless, modular systems work rather wretchedly -- likely, not creating any sound -- if the musician doesn't understand how to use them. One of the great advantages of the ARP 2600 and other such patchable synths with "normalled" jacks is that there are internal preset interconnections that inserting patch cords can override. Nikevich (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Daft"

"...although it sometimes took hours to set up the machine for a new sound"

This sounds a bit daft to me. Would it really take "hours" to set one of those initial Moog modular cabinets up? How many knobs and patch sockets were there on it, 40? The statement implies that limitations machine itself caused the inordinate time - I'd wager any delays were more due to musicians' inexperience with it, and not knowing what they were doing? Any thoughts?--feline1 05:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

From some personal experience, I can safely say that a basic patch takes only a few minutes, if that. (Around one's neck is a great place to store patch cords for immediate use, btw.) However, for a really-complex patch on a large system, such as some of those set up by W. Carlos, it could take hours to tweak. Nevertheless, modular systems work rather wretchedly -- likely, not creating any sound -- if the musician doesn't understand how to use them. One of the great advantages of the ARP 2600 and other such patchable synths with "normalled" jacks is that there are internal preset interconnections that inserting patch cords can override. Nikevich (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

This article could be improved with some additional personal information on Robert Moog , if available. --Blainster 16:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope to expand this article considerably after the release of the Moog documentary. -- Krash 17:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the documentary's crap for providing any information. -- Krash 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Long overdue, but I did finally add some additional personal information from the 2022 Glinsky Moog biography. synthfiend (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

R.I.P

21 August 2005 R.I.P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.235.110.19 (talk • contribs) .

Why the redirect to Bob Moog??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.146.173.148 (talk • contribs) .

r.i.p. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Бардюк Олег Юрійович (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob or Robert

The article uses both Bob and Robert, and looking at obituaries, interviews, etc. it appears that both were used. I would say that under these circumstances the article title should be the more formal name, not the less formal one. — ciphergoth 07:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

One comment in support above and no comments against, so I made the move. — ciphergoth 21:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "Dr. Moog" would be appropriate, as well. In person, he was exceptionally pleasant, very likable, and utterly, totally lacking any conceit; I'd say "self-effacing", but not excessively so. Nikevich (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone called him Bob, so both names need to be in the intro - 193.22.89.22 (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Carlos

Other documentaries emphasise the role Wendy Carlos played in bringing the Moog synth to popular attention - is that accurate? If so we should do so here. — ciphergoth 07:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Moog: proposed unit of measure

Although it would be nice to honour Mr. Moog with his own measurement unit... is there any substance to that, or is it a 'Wikipedia exclusive'? If not, maybe a link to that prposal might be appropriate. Asav

Yeah, this sounds like nonsense. I found nothing on google or the ANSI site. Section deleted. --fataltourist 23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Article split

I really want to split off the bits about the Moog synthesizer into their own article. The Robert Moog article would then be purely biographical, and the synthesizer article would just talk about the synthesizer. Any opinions on that? (Motivating reason being that on one of my music pages I mention using a Moog synthesizer and I wanted to be able to put in a link -- but linking to Robert Moog doesn't seem quite right. I could take the Robert Moog article, repost just the synthesizer-related content on my wiki and use that for the link, but that doesn't feel optimal either.) --Woozle 16:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Take it and run. There's definitely not enough biographical information and too much filler in this article. Also, there's really no definitive "Moog synthesizer". The term can describe a number of Moog instruments, all of which have their own name/model number. Moog synthesizer could be a disambiguation of these instruments/modules. -- Krash 14:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and made Moog synthesizer a disambig page. I will try to help clean up this article. Maybe all the synth and business info could go under Moog Music, since that is the current company name. That article needs some major clean up too. I'll try to get crackin. fataltourist 14:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article currently is a rambling mess of useless trivia and randomly dropped-names that serves not very well as a biography. Some of the text could be merged into Moog Music and Moog synthesizer. Some just needs to be deleted. The link repository is one of the most extensive and unencyclopedic I've seen in a while. -- Krash

Development of the Moog synthesizer

I propose trimming down this section and completely removing the "Moog synth in culture" as I have made an article out of Moog synthesizer and moved a great deal of the content over there. Please visit, comment and edit. This section in question would hopefully focus on more Moog's involvment in the development of the synth and I have a pretty good idea of the edits that I would make. I just don't want to upset anyone by removing anything from this article (even though it's been moved elsewhere) without discussing it first. -- Krash (Talk) 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Last lecture

This section is one sentence. If this is even noteworthy it can go somewhere... but I don't know where. Move? Delete? --fataltourist 23:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How's it look now? -- Krash (Talk) 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Moog

The Dutch do not pronunciate 'Moog' as "moch" but rather ryme it with "vogue" with a silent "g" at the end. Or does "moch" has a long "o" sound in it like in "open"? I wonder where he got the 'original' Dutch pronunciation from, since it is an uncommon name in Holland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stasis101 (talk • contribs) 13:11, May 26, 2006 (UTC)

The German pronunciation is wrong, too. It's not [moʊɡ] but [mo:k] or [mɔ:k]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.13.201.203 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

>The Dutch do not pronunciate 'Moog' as "moch" but rather ryme it with "vogue"

No they don't, Dutch pronunciation is /moːɣ/ 145.53.180.22 (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The German pronunciation is still wrong. It says it is "[moːɡ] before a vowel" which is simply wrong: the Auslautverhärtung also holds before vowels and is never context-dependent. The correct German pronunciation is simply /moːk/ ([moːkʰ] phonetically), not /moːg/ (and certainly never /mɔːk/ as was stated above; /ɔ/ is never long in German).--77.180.6.154 (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Google recognition of Birthdate of Robert Moog

The Google search page for May 23 has a special graphic of a Moog synthesizer. Clicking the keys produces "tones". This is a recognition of the 78th birthday of Robert Moog.

I don't know if this information is important enough to be "encyclopedic".

CBHA (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2012

రాబర్ట్ ఆర్ధర్ "బూబ్" మూగ్ (ప్రొన్సౌన్సడ్ / మూగ్) (మే 23,1934 - ఆగస్ట్ 21, 2005), మూగ్ మ్యూజిక్ ను కనిపెట్టాడు. తదుపరి కాలములో అమెరికన్ పయినీర్ ను కనిపెట్టినప్పటికీ మూగ్ సింధసైజర్ ను ఇతను బాగా అభివృద్ధి చేసారు. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.37.201 (talk) 07:03, May 23, 2012‎ (UTC)

Not done: The English Wikipedia only accepts contributions in the English language. If you want to contribute in your native language, consider donating to the Telugu Wikipedia. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2012

Please, could someone change the Google doodle description in the "Development of the Moog Synthesizer" section from: "On May 23rd, 2012, Google featured a replica of the Moog synthesizer in its Google Doodle honoring Moog's 78th birthday. This Doodle was playable, and visitors were able to try the synthesizer by clicking on the keys."

to:

""

This paragraph does not help recount Moog's development of the Moog synthesizer, which is what one would expect in an article about Moog. It might fit in the article on the Moog synthesizer, if there were a "replicas and examples" section; but it makes no sense here. If Google wants to say "Google honored Moog's 78th birthday by putting up a replica of his synthesizer on their main page," that would make more sense here, but would still sound a bit weird.

117.204.37.201 (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Pierre Schaeffer (Wikipedia) as founder of electronic music

If you review Wikipedia article on Pierre Schaeffer you will find he was born before Robert Moog and experimented with electronic music before Moog was born. The photo in the Pierre Schaeffer article shows him tinkering with a device that suspiciously looks like an early Moog yet the article on Pierre Schaeffer does not state he used any of Moog's inventions. So did Schaeffer outmoog the Moog? Please update and cross-reference appropriately. There is a reference to this item at Flickr and Breathe Publication (layout from Duran Duran). - Just a California Surfer 178.135.221.20 (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Minimoog development

In the article it says "The first prototype of the minimoog only had about two filters, two envelope generators, and a very small keyboard. Robert knew that this wouldn’t be good enough for the average musician, so he kept working on the synthesizer and was able to add more filters, oscillators, and a wider key range.[5]"

That's fine, except that the final version of the MiniMoog had ONE filter, two envelope generators and a fairly small keyboard. It did have three oscillators, although one was usually used as an LFO (for vibrato, wah-wah, etc.). Anyway, the statement as included is misleading at best and arguably totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.225.231.10 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Moog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080904214600/http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Mar03/articles/bobmoog.asp to http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar03/articles/bobmoog.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311020751/http://raymondscott.net/features/moog/ to http://raymondscott.net/features/moog/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)