Talk:Romo

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Music/Music genres task force Alternative music This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Pop music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Deleted page "Dex Dexter (band)"

A redirect to this page has been created for the longtime deleted

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 May 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was delete.

The movement or its style was NOT based on the bands Visage or Soft Cell at all. That is totally untrue. Club Skinny hardly played ANY New Romantic music at all. It would be much more accurate to say that Bowie, Blondie and Roxy Music were influences. Orlando were heavily influenced by Dexy's, Manic Street Preachers, Twee, R&B, Boy Bands, Smiths to name but a few. None of these influences are New Romantic acts. Hollywood was a pastiche of various glam and electro influences, but apart from Hannah's white face, not a whole lot of New Romantisism going on. I could list tons of non-New Romantic reference points that Hollywood used, but I can't be bothered. Plastic Fantastic were obviously Roxy Music inspired. DexDexTer were Prog Rock meets Electro meets Prince. Viva were just good looking and stylish. Viva had more in common with Morrissey, My Life Story, Elcka and Jack than Classixx Nouveaux or Thompson Twins.

There was no one at Club Skinny wearing pirate costumes, dodgy goth gear, winkle pickers, new romantic garb or jogging pants with the word 'Physique' written down the side. No-one involved in Romo was referencing New Romantic. Some of the media reported the Romo movement as New Romantic because they didn't get any of the fashion or musical references and simply equated 'club people dressing up' with New Romantic.

-Ghost of Del Gray ROMO9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.76.212 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Del (if you're reading this after all these years.)

After giving it some consideration, I've replaced Visage with Japan in that paragraph since Japan were an acknowledged influence on both Plastic Fantastic (esp Stuart Miller's vocals and hairstyle) and DexDexTer (for example Xav's original stagename Paul Roide was a pun on Polaroid(s), as in what "Gentlemen Take ...") I didn't write that particular paragraph but I left it in as I liked it. Visage weren't an obvious direct influence on any of the core bands, but they did have a shared lineage with Persecution Complex (namely Ziggy Stardust fandom). Soft Cell I would still defend in that paragraph - not only did Marc Almond produce your track Now! but also Soft Cell were a crucial early example of the vocalist/keyboardist Synth Duo format - later taking in the Pet Shop Boys - to which Sexus (and on an instrumental if not aesthetic level Hollywood) adhered.

It's worth noting that, in the early stages at least, "Some of the media (who) reported the Romo movement as New Romantic" included Simon Price who did emphasise the lineage in his earliest (Jun-Sept '95) articles on Romo and was still using NR references as metaphors/reference points as late as the Melody Maker Romo special.

I must say I find your comment relating Romo-era Viva to Morrissey, My Life Story, Elcka and Jack a bit curious to say the least, as these were generally indie-guitar/drumkit orientated acts who wouldn't have been seen dead doing stuff as danceable as Now or The Devil You Love. I could understand comparing Scala 5 or Viva's early Britpop incarnation to those bands, but not really the Viva of late '95/early '96. They were all the same "too guitar driven ... too rockist .. too Britpop" kind of music you condemned your pre-Romo work for being in the MM Romo special interview you did (for Taylor Parkes). In any case, certain members of Jack were known to be quite Romophobic - in his MM Romo Special interview, Stuart Miller recalls with disdain how one of Jack (IIRC the guitarist) "told me I was wasting my time trying to be Kylie. He was pissed as a fart dancing to Pulp"

Otherwise cheers for the comment and hope you read this reply one day.

95.144.247.177 (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76.167.227.243 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC) romo was on the front page of Melody Maker. clearly it was very well represented in the press[reply]

Just because it's notable, doesn't mean it deserves a huge puff piece. Also the idea that Electroclash is in, any significant way, derived from Romo is deeply questionable, as is the idea that it needs an entry exponentially bigger than the Electroclash entry. Romo was an interesting phenomenon, but if anything the article betrays this through a ridiculously OTT attempt to make the individuals involved appear significant. Expect to see changes and soon! Maloot (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Electroclash doesn't have a long enough page, then someone should write a longer page for it. That's what Wikipedia is for! The article does not "make the individuals seem significant" as you put it - if anything it treats them as a large group of players on a scene. If large numbers of individual Wikipedia pages had been created for the individuals involved then THAT, I grant you, would constitute "attempt to make the individuals involved appear significant". No such project has been undertaken - only two individuals and one band from the core Romo scene have their own pages on Wikipedia (as well as a subsection for another band on its founder's page) - all of these had other accomplishments under their belts. The Romo movement has been deemed notable enough for an article, the said article has already survived a deletion discussion, therefore as long as content is properly and verifiably referenced, then under the terms of Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content (

Wikipedia:N#NCONTENT

), as much content as can be written can be added - overall length of article in relation to notability is NOT an issue!

For what it's worth, I (who wrote most of that article as it stands currently) have never met the majority of the individuals involved and have no motive for "bigging them up" as you appear to imply. (As a matter of fact I have only met three individuals concerned and one of these was a highly acrimonious encounter!) I was living outside the UK for the majority of the Romo movement's lifetime, never went to any of the scene clubs and only ever saw one of the major bands in concert, and that was in a support slot for a non-Romo act towards the end of the period described. Therefore I can assure you I have no personal or familiar incentive to aggrandise anyone involved. These people are not my mates!!!

I was however sufficiently intrigued by the press coverage and impressed by said concert at the time to retrospectively become a fan of the movement and to collect recordings, press cuttings etc. Until I rewrote this piece, there was little more than a stub article which was frequently the target of "humourous" sabotage. It seemed to me that a proper written history with properly credited sources was required, not least as this would constitute verified content and thus a more serious matter if sabotaged, and with the resources and basic knowledge I had at my disposal, I considered that I was the wiki user for the job! (If I may say so myself, I think I did a pretty good effort of it.)

Please note that I monitor this article frequently as I do with any other I have written/re-written. While I am prepared to go along with constructive edits (eg if I got something wrong or didn't follow Wikipedia procedures properly) I nonetheless claim the right under the aforementioned Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content (

Wikipedia:N#NCONTENT) to treat any hacking-out of verifiable content as vandalism and respond accordingly. Although my first instinct would be to simply revert such efforts, if a revert-war results, then I am quite prepared to take the matter up to a higher level of Wiki authority if needs be. Maloot, I note with interest that in the near-month since you posted, your account appears to have been deleted - something which does not inspire confidence with regard to the quality of your proposed changes. 95.144.242.5 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Speaking as the author of most of this as it stands, it would be helpful if you could actually specify more clearly what your issues are with this article, preferably citing examples.

Style we can clear up fairly easily, I can go through

WP:MOS

and sort out any issues. However:

WP:NOTESSAY

? I fail to see any issues of original thought - I stuck to a fairly neutral history of the Romo scene without delving into the pros and cons of the ideology. As far as I can see, the only real giveaway of my being a fan is the actual depth of detail. If there are any specific issues with any "original thoughts" please kindly identify them.

WP:RS

? I carefully cited all print media sources and do not see any specific issues with the online sources (except perhaps that I could have provided cite dates in some cases.)

If you could clarify your objections on the above points, I could resolve them, or at the very least we could discuss the issues. I would prefer this to waiting around. 95.144.243.11 (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before reading this, please note this is not a demolition job, but an attempt to suggest ways in which this article can be brought up to a high standard. So taking the three major issues I highlighted above:

On style. There are too many minor points to list here, but for example,

MOS:HASH

. Minor points, but they need to be put right at some point.

On sources. Many of the sources used here do not appear to be

WP:CITE

and a number are arguments to support a point in the text instead of proper citations. Care also needs to be taken with the way in which sources are used. For example, just to take the first citation, used in the infobox to support the idea that electroclash is a derivative form of romo, the Guardian article simply does not do that. It just says that "the same qualities that will raise some hackles will make other ears prick up," clearly quite a different statement.

On tone. This may be the hardest for us all to see on articles we have written, but this article does not look like it conforms to "English language should be used in a businesslike manner" to me as at

WP:AUDIENCE

is also important. It may be hard to see this if you are very familiar with the topic, but an uninitiated reader would find this all very hard to follow. Just one example, we are told that the movement started in Camden, and most British readers will know know where that is, but a very large number of readers might have no idea that is is in North London. And I emphasise this is just one example, a lot of article is actually very hard to follow and a more encylopedic and factual tone would really help with that. It can also be extremely difficult to follow to what is being said in this article. For example, from the second section:

• "Price was invited to the aforementioned double bill edition of Club Skinny and, with the event judged a success by all concerned, not only began to cover the scene enthusiastically in his writing, converting his colleague Taylor Parkes along the way, but also opened up a second clubnight for the scene in Soho, named Arcadia."

This sentence has three subordinate clauses. It would be much better to break it up into three short sentences, as in

• "Price was invited to the double bill edition of Club Skinny. After the event was judged a success by all concerned, he began to cover the scene enthusiastically in his writing. He converted his colleague Taylor Parkes to support the movement and opened up a second clubnight for the scene in Soho, named Arcadia."

So in summary: if you wish to improve the article I suggest removing the unreliable sources and anything that cannot otherwise be substantiated, formatting the remaining reliable sources as per

WP:CITE and then adjusting the text to closely fit with what the sources actually say. Breaking up the language so that it is in clear short sentences that will be clear to the casual reader, then finally dealing with any MOS issues. That all done this would probably be a candidate for GA status.--SabreBD (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I worked in the music industry in the late 90's. Romo was nothing more than a couple of awful bands and a lot of wishful thinking from a music press facing the end of "britpop" and needing a new 'scene' to latch on to. It barely existed outside of the imagination of Simon Reynolds and Fischerspooner's PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.51.254 (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The Club Skinny/Arcadia scene certainly physically existed (and, for a scene that was ostensibly about anti-authenticity, the Romo scene was a considerably more "organic" community than some music press movements we could mention) and has been deemed notable enough to have an article. You missed the boat on that one by nearly three years (deletion debate in Jan 09 voted "Keep".)

(2) It was Simon Price, not Simon Reynolds who championed Romo, so kindly get your facts right. And Fischerspooner were not formed until 1998, the year after the last Romo bands - Minty and Orlando (mk2 still with Dickon Edwards on board) either split or metamorphosed into other incarnations. Now, if you are going to get simple details like that wrong, why should we treat you as an authority?

(3) Romo was MEANT to annoy and offend the hell out of people like yourself in the indie/alternative guitar sector of music. It's rather nice to see that all these years later it can STILL be effective in winding up all you ageing indiekids. Hehehe... 95.144.247.44 (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on

• Attempted to fix sourcing for www.thisisromo.com/romo/plasticfantastic/interview.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for www.thisisromo.com/romo/viva/history.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for www.thisisromo.com/romo/whos_who/index.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for www.thisisromo.com/romo/clubkitten/index.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for hem.bredband.net/b144242/uk_info.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for hem.bredband.net/b144242/uk_new.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified one external link on Romo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thebaggage.com/issue12/romo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315004242/http://www.golden-pop.com/cms/stars to http://www.golden-pop.com/cms/stars

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really love to include the story Simon Price likes to tell of how the NME held an emergency crisis meeting after the MM Romo special, worried that Britpop was going to be slung out like Prog and pub rock once punk arrived and that at the meeting they decided to put every effort into putting the boot into Romo and burying it. But does anyone have a wiki-reliable source for this? Romomusicfan (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]