Talk:Roxette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "sucks..." 2 Hit Singles Format 3 Partially agree 4 POV 5 Image 6 Edits 7 More Edits 8 Editing 9 Discography 10 Cleanup

[edit] "sucks..."

Well, all I did was try to sum up the level of success the group had, which has its significance while, at the same time, it does not. Roxette's just a pop group. This is an encyclopedic entry, and nowhere else -- not even on the Web sites devoted to Roxette -- do you have such a detailed story of the group and its members. Re-edit it all you want, but try to be kind and avoid pithy, inappropriately opinionated statements that serve no positive or productive purpose. "sucks..." such eloquent articulation, indeed. aharmon1973 10:20, 14 Nov 2006 (EST)

[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)

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)

[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)