Talk:Roland Juno-60

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Musical Instruments Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed Merge With Roland Juno-106 Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given that the models are sufficiently distinct. Klbrain (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the Roland Juno-60 page should be merged with the Roland Juno-106 page, especially as they share most of the same features and some of the Juno-106 “Hardware re-issues and recreations” and “Software Emulations” information is actually referring to the Juno-60 (for example, TAL U-NO-LX is an emulation of the Juno-60, not the Juno-106, yet it’s mentioned on the 106 page and not the 60 page).

The instruments have had a big impact on electronic music and it would be nice to expand their pages, but it seems like having one page for the Juno-6, Juno-60 and Juno-106 is the best way to go. InDimensional (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per that rationale. (As an aside, I wonder if we only need one "Roland Juno" page and all the Juno synths can be covered in one article? I'm not familiar enough with the various synths to know if they need separate pages.) Popcornfud (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Roland Juno-G, Juno-D and Juno Gi are very different, they're digital workstation-style synths, similar in name and colour scheme only, so best to keep them separate but mention them. InDimensional (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support a combined page for Juno-6, Juno-60, and Juno-106. The 60 and 106 were derivatives of/successors to the Juno-6. Other later Roland Junos were not directly related and should not be combined. synthfiend (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Juno 6/60 and 106 each have its own distinctive sound and capabilities, and are consequently often associated with musical styles. This is largely due to the fact that they have different filters and envelopes, but others differences included the chorus, the 106 has portamento, glide and unison, and the 60 has an arpeggiator and is capable of modulating oscillator pulse width from its envelope. It is misleading to merge them into one page as though these substantial differences don't exist. It would be better if all Juno synths were merged into a single article rather than only merging the 60 and 106.JMB1980 (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on the Juno-60 and Juno-106 being associated with different musical styles? I was under the impression that they were generally used interchangably by musicians, dependent on price and whether the arpeggiator is required InDimensional (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of anybody using the Juno-60 and Juno-106 interchangeably. This interview explores the role of the Juno-106 in techno and house music, genres in which the Juno-106 is considered influential. It's associated with pretty much all manner of British dance music, ambient music and other dance music from the 90s, while the Juno-60 seems to have been somewhat unfashionable in the 90s. The Juno-60, meanwhile, is associated with 80s pop music and 2000s indie bands. They were both used in 80s synthpop and new wave, but the Juno-60 seems more strongly associated with this decade, while the Juno-106 is more associated with 90s dance music.JMB1980 (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late, but Support only as a combined page for Juno-6, Juno-60, and Juno-106. Schminnte (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - they may have similar names and lineage, but are radically different internally. And, as JMB1980 (talk · contribs) points out, can sound quite different. The 60 is based on the IR3109 / IR3R01 chipset, whereas the 106 has potted modules. As it happens, I've a Juno-106 in pieces on my bench in front of me right now - Alison ^talk 04:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am seeing lots of comments along the lines of "they have different sounds and hardware", and not many arguments that actually reference Wikipedia policy. How these two synthesizers are covered by sources should inform our decision, not our own estimations of how they differ. Popcornfud (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every source I've seen covers them as separate and distinct synthesizers; in fact, I can't find a single source that supports the idea that they are the essentially the same. They shouldn't be merged if that is the criteria used to decide.JMB1980 (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great — can you provide some examples for context? This will guide our coverage. Popcornfud (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Roland from Sound on Sound: "The Juno 106 looked quite different from its older brethren, and the changes were more than skin deep." Also, review of the Juno-X from Music Radar: "The original Juno-60 and 106 were similar but radically different machines, each with its own strengths." Furthermore, I should point out that the fact that the Juno-X features emulations of both the Juno-60 and the Juno-106 is further proof that they are quite different; why have emulations of both if they're essentially the same? So do you have any sources supporting the argument that they aren't really any different?JMB1980 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also both are extensively detailed separately in Mark Vail's book, "Vintage Synthesizers" (ISBN 0879306033). I'll check it later - Alison ^talk 22:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Sound-on-Sound, May '84; "This Juno [the 106 replaces the Junos 6 and 60, and the whole exercise demonstrates the now well-recognised Roland marketing ploy of facelifting and improving a proven seller. This can and does antagonise buyers who thought that the Juno 60 was the bee's knees (and it wasn't around that long, was it?) until this one came along; and because the 106 is so obviously an improvement facility-wise of the basic Juno theme, the values of the 6 and 60 are going to suffer badly on the used market.]" - Alison ^talk 02:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Sound-on-Sound, May '84; Geoff Twigg gives us a quick synthesis philosophy lesson and takes a look at Roland's latest budget polyphonic: he finds it's rather more than just a Juno 60 update.
Apart from the increase in the number of presets over the Juno 60, the other impressive 106 innovation is on the performance control panel to the left of the keyboard.", and so on - Alison ^talk 02:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.