Talk:Roxette
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
 |
The article on Roxette is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. |
|---|---|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Hit Singles Format
Someone should really put the hit singles list in a table format. The list style format makes it all cluttered, especially when you look at the peak spots in various countries for each song.
[edit] Partially agree
I partially agree. While Roxette is surely NOT some obscure band - not even remotely close to it, look at their four No.1s in the US and NINETEEN Top 40 hits in UK - the article is obviously just overly detailed It should be much more concise, thats for sure. And Introduction sucks... By the way, I can't seem to be able to edit it - I get a message error. Is it because it doesn't have separate "edit" option for it? Scholar91 19:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Scholar91
[edit] POV
This is overall a good article, but it has a somewhat derogatory tone through-out. To say that "Roxette's popularity can be difficult to understand", about a band that has sold over 40 million records seems odd. Tha same tone is repeated through-out the text.--85.225.41.189 09:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed - that's what got me to this talk page to see if it was being discussed. I can't quite pinpoint it, but the article does seem strangely toned. And yes, I'm sure there are quite many people out there who can understand the popularity of the band without any difficulty. The article also seems quite USA-centric, which is strange since (as far as I know) the band was most popular here in scandinavia. I'd say this calls for a retoning and viewpoint alteration. So although indeed very comprehensive, certainly not a featured article without further editing. --195.148.72.88 00:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Admittedly, this is a USA-centric article, but I did try to find as much as I could about Roxette's performance on the U.K. and Swedish charts. the U.S. was not only a goal of Per Gessle's but a reality in the history of Roxette ... in fact, a big one, no matter where in the world you are. If you're a fan of Roxette, most likely it's going to be important to you that the group managed as much success in the States as it did, in fact garnering four No. 1s when it couldn't even achieve one in the U.K. And some of what I wrote was inspired by critics from Rolling Stone and AllMusic.com. A fan may not think it's so difficult to appreciate or understand Roxette's brief but nonetheless broad mainstream appeal, but anyone else, even someone who mildly liked Roxette back in the '80s and '90s, very well might. The group has never made music like or had critical or commercial success similar to U2 or the Rolling Stones, for example, and never sought to break boundaries or fuse distinctly different musical styles into something brand new. In fact, the group hasn't even been credited for pop craft or a historical significance to the same extent as compatriots ABBA, a group that had even less of a rock influence than Roxette. Furthermore, Marie Fredriksson and Per Gessle have not shied away from the charge that their music lacks emotional depth. They make it very clear that theirs is about a traditional "pop" music sound, something that came before them and, in various forms, has outlasted them. To hear Fredriksson's 2004 English-language solo album The Change shows just how far a cry she as a solo artist fares from she as co-lead of Roxette. One of the themes I tried to establish was that Roxette's all-too-brief hold on mainstream U.K./U.S. radio was impressive nonetheless. The group gets no individual credit or notice in the U.S. as a musical entity. "It Must Have Been Love" gets played on adult contemporary radio, and every once in a while "The Look" shows up as backdrop in a VH-1 special. But you never hear people say, "Remember Roxette?" They can't be classified as One-Hit-Wonders, but they also can't be classified as Arena Legends, at least not here in the U.S. When you fall somewhere in the middle like that, sometimes it's all too easy to just disappear.
- --Andrew Harmon 1:23 p.m. (EST-USA) Feb. 22, 2006
- Your analysis is interesting, but it's exactly that: Your analysis. Your interpretation of others'opinions, which comes very close to original research. Comparing Roxette and ABBA's trajectories in an attempt to gain some historical perspective on the band's career is not very encyclopedic. --RicardoC 08:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- If the problems with the article as is are so intrinsically troublesome to you -- and to others who may feel that I or anyone else contributing to this entry already have caused harm to the members of Roxette as the topic of this entry -- you should re-write the article. I added weight to an all-too-brief entry in 2005, providing as much research and detail as I could. Perhaps the article is too journalistic and not encyclopedic enough. I have no interest in providing further edits, and I don't believe that a nearly 2-year-long discussion in which people use non-encyclopedic terms like "sucks" is healthy or worthwhile -- that serves a far greater disservice to the band than anything I wrote here. Have at it, and enjoy the feedback you get.
- --Andrew Harmon 8:22 p.m. (EST-USA) Jan. 6, 2007.
- Your analysis is interesting, but it's exactly that: Your analysis. Your interpretation of others'opinions, which comes very close to original research. Comparing Roxette and ABBA's trajectories in an attempt to gain some historical perspective on the band's career is not very encyclopedic. --RicardoC 08:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do agree - the introductory paragraph is expressing a personal point of view, contesting the popularity of the band and its "infectious lightweight sound". As part of an ecyclopedia, this article it should not question their carreer or music quality. 200.153.251.187 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What nobody seems to understand - or be aware of - is how a major part of their commercial decline in the US was obviously tied to trouble (read = cluelessness) with the US arm of EMI/Capitol. A band that has 6 of its first 7 singles go to either #1 or #2, suddenly stops selling overnight? Even when, if anything, the general tone of their music goes with, not against, the current musical climate? (ie, less emphasis on the "power ballads", more of the power-pop aspects), and their worldwide sales continue to be very healthy? (And lest this be taken as a specific sour grapes argument, check into the worldwide vs. US sales and profile of Crowded House and the Pet Shop Boys during roughly the same period - two other EMI/Capitol artists.)
[edit] Image
I have found no reason why this image is copyvio. I have found no arguments on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, (perhaps I looked in the wrong places...?) The image description on the German page, quick link here: [1] shows that the author himself uploaded the image. If you go to commons, where this image is from, and click on the first version you will see a very large image that is unlikely to have been scanned (IMHO).
On commons, the author (in German) explains that he allows the image to be used on wikipedia. For these reasons, I see no reason not to have this nice image on English wikipedia too...
--Fred chessplayer 02:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edits
I have been editing this article beyond reason and have finished for now. Anyone who may have been reading this during the edits and noticing nit-picky changes in the past week, please forgive me. I did a lot of research to find this information out and wanted to make sure that there was a comprehensive history of Roxette since otherwise one has to do what I did, dig around, in order to find out things in any complete way. There's always more to know, but, for now, I hope the article proves comprehensive — at least satisfactory — enough.
--Andrew Harmon 4 p.m. (EST-USA) Aug. 18, 2005
- Nice work! Featured article? Stefan 02:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] More Edits
I have continued the edits, I have added information about the new album.
[edit] Editing
--User:Kojack0 I will try to get some more information about each of the singles listed on this page and my aim in improving this Wiki is to ensure there are no red edit links on the page!
The article needs heavy and healthy editing. It is so overly detailed and written in that "eyes wide open" fan-derived celebratory tone. It reads more like a "love letter" from Roxette fans not an encyclopedia entry. It should be more balanced, more critical, more analytical....
Scholar91 20:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discography
All the album titles and their text need to go under a separate section named "Discography" or something like that.
Skypher 10:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
This article really needs clean up especially with regards to discography. There needs to either be a seperate discography article or there should be albums and singles charts in a table format. Can someone work on that? --Mezaco 23:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
---Well it looks like it has already been cleaned up to me.
[edit] Rox Box / 20th Year Anniversary
---Should these be combined? You should also put the year (month day and year) of their 20th year.
[edit] Trivia
---I have some trivia about pronunciation errors that Roxette make in some songs. Should I add them to the trivia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.36.144 (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Roxette one wish Single.jpg
Image:Roxette one wish Single.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Roxette.jpg){kind=link}