Talk:Robert Moog

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert Moog article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Biography: Musicians / Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Professional sound production Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Electronic music Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Columbia University

Moog was a Jew

He was Jewish and is buried in a Jewish cemetery. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?GRid=11592850&page=gr

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 to the theremin 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 proof read 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) .

Pronounced

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

IPA pronounciation 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Improvements

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Bob or Robert

The article uses both Bob and Robert, and looking at obituaries, interview 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)[reply]

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

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 ist 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cleanup

The article currently is a rambling mess of useless trivia and randomly dropped-names that serves not very well as a biograpy. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Pronounciation

The Dutch do not pronounciate '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 pronounciation 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 Pronounciation 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)[reply]

>The Dutch do not pronounciate '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)[reply]

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)[reply]