Talk:Realistic Concertmate MG-1

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments 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.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move request

This article is incorrectly titled. This synthesizer is not called the "Moog Concertmate MG-1". Its correct and easily viewable title (written on the synthesizer itself) is the "Realistic Concertmate MG-1".

Someone please correct this title.

I don't think this needs to be corrected. The article clearly and correctly states that the instrument was designed by, and used parts supplied by Moog. It was designed by a Moog employee, and the circuit boards of the synthesizer itself have the Moog logo. This Keyboard fits into the Moog form factor of other Moogs of the time, and has much in common with other Moog keyboards. Additionally, the reference to Realistic is mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, in bold font.

--Would other people please comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.52.12 (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no, he's right- it's not a moog design. it says so in the first paragraph. I have (somewhere) an old bulletin-board from dave luce describing the genesis of the MG-1, though of course that would get shot down as OR by the wiki police. it should NOT say 'moog' in the title of the article,

a) because the thing wasn't designed by moog &

b) because THAT'S NOT WHAT IT WAS CALLED IN REAL LIFE.

duncanrmi (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia articles, but wouldn't a link to the actual Radio Shack catalogue be sufficient as a "source"?

Unfortunately, the catalogue lists the synth as "The Realistic/Moog* Polyphonic Synthesizer" at the top of the page, but then lists it as "Realistic MG-1 Synthesizer by Moog" in the first sentence of the product description. The rest of the page refers to it as "Realistic MG-1 Synthesizer" or just "MG-1"; Moog isn't mentioned anywhere else. The asterisk in the product name (at the top of the page) refers to "Trademark of Norlin Industries".

Here's a link to the catalogue: https://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/flipbook/1983_radioshack_catalog.html. It's on page 54.

I'm not asking this to definitively set the name of the product (though I would say it's called the "Realistic MG-1 Synthesizer"), I'm just asking what we can/should use as a reference.

Steve Steve PlanetEarth (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the 1982 catalogue, it's listed in the "quick index" and the complete index as "Moog Synthesizer", but at the top of that page, it's listed as "Realistic Synthesizer by Moog*" (again, with the asterisk), and then as "Realistic MG-1 Synthesizer by Moog" at the beginning of the product description. Other than the same disclaimer that "Moog" is a trademark of Norlin Industries, there's no mention of either name anywhere else on the page.

https://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/flipbook/1982_radioshack_catalog.html (Page 23, if you're interested.)

In the 1983 catalogue, it is not mentioned in either the "quick index" or the complete index.

Steve Steve PlanetEarth (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the synth isn't mentioned and doesn't appear at all in the 1981 or 1984 catalogues.

Steve Steve PlanetEarth (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved (renamed) the article, and just completed a fair amount of re-writing and re-organizing, with additional citations. I hope everyone agrees it's an improvement. synthfiend (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks for the effort!

I'm a bit surprised that the article is considered "Start-class", even though I understand the class rankings are subjective. But there really isn't much more to be said about the synth, and the article page itself doesn't note that more sources are required, as I've seen on several pages that only cite a couple of sources or are very short on information. The page doesn't even mention any issues with the article (not publicly, anyway).

Again, I'm fairly new to this, but I'd like to make the articles I help out on as good as they can be. Does anyone know how to move the article from "Start-class" to at least "C-class"? As a short-lived product in a niche market and sold by only one company, I'm not sure there's much more to be said about it. I also think the original writers and those who've worked on it have done a very good job.

All that said, the link under "Users[sic] Manual" is a dead link. But the always-helpful Synthmania has a PDF of the manual (and the service manual) that he claims to have scanned himself. It's posted on his site and also linked to in this article. Obviously, that could also succumb to "link rot" (and it's not a particularly great scan), so what should be done in this case?

Steve Steve PlanetEarth (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]