Talk:New Romanticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

.

Music Genre Infobox?[edit]

New Romantic was a youth cult and fashion in the early 1980s nothing to do with musical style so why are we using a music genre infobox? 86.132.45.105 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Removed, it was deleted a few months ago but someone added it back recently. There currently is no Youth Culture Infobox Template andi064 T . C 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed the music genre infobox had been added back so I removed it again.89.168.21.189 (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
And I have just removed it yet again. As usual, people are confusing New Romanticism with New Wave music. The two were linked but are not the same thing. 88.104.19.157 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It was a musical movement rather than a style - primarily it was a music press/media classification term for a certain selection of bands. As a music press-defined "movevement" it therefore CAN be classed as a genre, therefore the box IS appropriate. 95.151.209.62 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I see both sides of this one. New Romanticism was primarily band driven, but the musical style of many of these bands is usually classified as part of the wider synthpop branch of New Wave. I will take a look at the major sources and see what direction they point in.--SabreBD (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the person at the start of this thread wanted rid of the box because he/she said that New Romantic was just a fashion movement - when clearly it was primarily a movement/classification in Pop Music. I mean, if it was purely a fashion movement one might reasonably expect the scene to gravitate around fashion shows and clothes shops. In fact the epicentre of the scene was a Nightclub (since the 1960s a synonym for discoteque) - a place where people go to listen and dance to music played by DJs and live bands - both of which were central to the Blitz club.
Ironically, by way of comparison Punk *DID* have its epicentre in a clothes shop but nobody would ever dare question its status as primarily a Music Movement. 195.92.109.20 (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It was never a musical movement, it was a fashion movement that began in London nightclubs and the style was adopted by people who were involved in various bands at the time (Steve Strange, Spandau Ballet, Duran, etc). Vivienne Westwood's shop in London was also central to the movement. It's not music. If "New Romantic" was a music genre, how exactly was Adam & The Ants music similar to Visage or Duran Duran? I dont think A&TA even used synths on their records. The thing that links these artists was their visual style - nothing more. 88.104.18.67 (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree. I have been working on a cleaned up version, which also removed all the OR and deals with the other issues. I will post it soon.--SabreBD (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

falklands war bit[edit]

It seems that the anti-war feeling helped New Romanticism to grow, it didn't cause it. Please fix my wording if it's implying that --Enric Naval (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The New Romantic movement was largely over by the time the Falklands War began in 1982. 88.104.19.157 (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Political POV[edit]

  • Removed the following as it gives a single unbalenced political aspect to the article and overdue weight to editors POV:

    It replaced Punk rock as a musical trend, promoting a feminity reserved to males[1] and providing scapism from the harsh reality of those times.[2] Its apparition and growth were favoured by the societal changes caused by the hard-line politics of Margaret Thatcher, the young men reacted saying "Let's just go party and get dressed up instead"[2] Andy McCluskey, a former member of the group Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark says that New Romanticism was not a new marketeable phenomen but a "genuine outburst" against the belief that greed was good, which was prevalent at that time, and was being promoted by Tatcher.[2] This mood was worsened by the opposition to the Falklands War, the trade union crushing and closure of pits, which caused an increase on unemployement and the death of hope.[2] Helen Reddington theorizes that the start of the Falklands War, which ended the peacetime, returned militarism as a mean to dispers surplus male energy.[1]

As it has been removed once already by another editor, Unless a consenus is generated on this talk page to keep it, it remains off. Archivey (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This section is stating (rather dubious) POV as fact. --Bri (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
As I have stated before, New Romanticism began in late 1980, was in it's hey-day in 1981, with groups associated with the movement such as Adam and the Ants and Duran Duran having many hit singles in the charts. The Falklands War was in 1982. That's like saying the Rolling Stones and Beatles got together as a result of the JFK assassination.--jeanne (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
OP has re-added it against consensus. I can't remove it again due to WP:3RR another signed in editor may care to do so. Archivey (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, about that, I missed this discussion. I have to say that I was not consciously pushing any POV because I don't have any opinion on this movement, I was just convinced I was actually writing an accurate description of New Romanticism influences. I realized my mistake when I went to search for more sources to furnish my point, but then I realized that I couldn't find any: those two sources are almost the only ones making any sort of link between NR and Falklands or between NR and Tatcher. I couldn't even find sociological stuff about scapism from rhe harsh realities of the Britain of that time. I suppose I had misinterpreted sources and misrepresented New Romanticism. Sorry again, I'll try to be more careful next time.
Is it possible to save the "It replaced Punk rock as a musical trend, promoting a feminity reserved to males" bit? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the replaced Punk bit as it did in the UK (but not exclusively), much of the female side of the NR culture evolved from female Punk style and I’m surprised no one has created Numanoid article (Numanoid was a principally female culture for female followers of Gary Numan who crossed directly from Punk rock (as it died) to Synthpop and Electronica; and created their own style in late 1970s - 1980 which was the basis of female New Romantic fashion of 1981- 1983. The male side was less to do with feminity and more a rebellion against financial austerity of the 1970s; and was essentially heterosexual male Peacock behaviour. There is a lot of interesting stuff out there that this article desperately needs, unfortunately as it is nearly 30 years in history this article often suffers from a lot of WP:OR and WP:POV not helped but media generalisations that some editors use as WP:RS. I suggest anyone researching NR starts with the Numanoids and the Blitz Kids in 1979/1980 and works out, rather than what an ill informed US mid-western newspaper wrote in 1986, 3 years too late. Archivey (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

New Romantic movement in Ireland[edit]

As someone who lived in Dublin in the 1980s, I was not only a witness to the popularity of the movement but wore the gear myself and hung out at The Afro Spot on Fleet Street in Dublin city centre on the southside, which was a trendy venue for New Romantics. I will find a source which confirms this and replace the content which was arbitrarily deleted by the anonymous IP.--jeanne (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Whilst I intensely dislike IP edits and believe Wiki should be all membership: I’m afraid that section was purely WP:OR and that anon editor was correct in their removal of it. Please try and confine your research to WP:RS rather than your own personal experiences. Archivey (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I shall obtain a source for the information before I put it back. I did remove a libelous statement in the article against Boy George which had been overlooked.--jeanne (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bow Wow Wow[edit]

Shouldn't Bow Wow Wow be included? They are often mentioned in articles about the New Romantics alongside Adam and the Ants, Visage and Spandau Ballet.--jeanne (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In a word...no. No-one called Bow Wow Wow New Romantics at the time...They didn't even use synths.Vauxhall1964 (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

New Romantics[edit]

The New Romantics, (or perhaps New Romantic) are / were a band from the 80s. I'm surprised they have been overlooked, but obviously people get the genre and the group confused. The article on Ultravox, refers to both, and the author understands the distinction.

I'm unfamiliar with wikipedia, so someone else might like to correct the entry to reflect, New romanticism and the New Romantics.


203.214.102.237 (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • "In the mid-1990s, New Romanticism was revived in England as a movement called Romo" Completely untrue! i was one of the originators of the romo movement and it was not in anyway an attempt of those involved to revive new romanticism. completely separate musical movement that just happened to share a similar name. wikipedia is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.244.75 (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Easy solution. Removed Romo from article. andi064 T . C 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Added back per source, and I could source this ten times over to music press of the day. Whether it was or was not an attempt to revive New Romanticism, that's how it was regarded and reported by chroniclers of the day. Hiding T 13:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The chroniclers of the day, or shall we say completely ignorant journalists of the day, had no grasp of the movement and their reporting completely misrepresented Romo. Is this how Wikpedia works? It simple regurgitates what the press says? That's pathetic. If The Sun newspaper or the National Enquirer say something then it's the truth? Sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.244.75 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The Sun and the National Enquirer are not used as sources in this article. Also, Wikipedia operates from a neutral point of view, rather than adopting any point of view. That's not viewed as pathetic, but necessary to prevent point of view pushing. Wikipedia is not the platform to set the record straight. If you believe the record is wrong, then seek publication of your view in a reliable source elsewhere, so that Wikipedia can in turn summarise it and become better. Hiding T 09:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourced information[edit]

TO the anonymous editor who seems to have an issue with mentioning the Human League, ABC and Heaven 17 in the article, I suggest they have a read of our policy on neutral point of view. A wide variety of sources identify the bands with the movement, regardless of whether individuals feel they were part of the movement. To reflect the state of affairs, I've summarised Rimmer, who makes both the point that the bands are seen as part of the movement but that they were not considered a part of it at the time. I'm happy to discuss this issue, but sourced, verifiable information which informs the reader, takes a neutral view and is relevant should not be removed. Thanks, Hiding T 08:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  • List of newspaper sources describing either the Human League, ABC or Heaven 17 as new romantic in the last 12 months:
  1. Keeping fir is as easy ABC for Fry The Express 21 February 2009; EDITED BY KATHRYN SPENCER WITH LIZZIE CATT, CLAUDIA GOULDER AND JACK TEAGUE
  2. Banish thoughts of gold lame and simply swoon The Independent on Sunday (London); Apr 12, 2009; Simon Price; p. 60
  3. Review: Pop: La Roux Notting Hill Arts Club, London 2/5 The Guardian (London); Feb 7, 2009; Ian Gittins; p. 46
  4. Review: THE STEEL CITY TOUR ECHO arena, Liverpool Liverpool Echo (Liverpool); Dec 5, 2008; Emma Johnson; p. 5
  5. 1982: ABC Poison Arrow The Sunday Times (London); Nov 30, 2008; David Chater; p. 24
  6. Interview: Phil oakey Nottingham Evening Post 28 November 2008, to quote Oakey: "I thought we were the first people who were called New Romantics."
  7. DON'T YOU WANT ME, EIGHTIES? Irish Times (Dublin); Oct 18, 2008; HUGH LINEHAN; p. 21
  8. CD ROUND-UP The Express 08 August 2008
  9. TV LAND: Ashes looks to the future The Daily Mirror (London); Oct 8, 2008; Mark Jefferies; p. 24
  10. Throw back the years Evening Chronicle (Newcastle-upon-Tyne); Dec 15, 2008; p. 21
  11. DRESSED TO IMPRESS - WITH ALL THE FRILLS Daily Record (Glasgow); Mar 26, 2009; Rick Fulton, Showbiz editor, Pictured left, In his New Romantic days; p. 3
  12. A Strange Week Scotsman (Edinburgh); Mar 28, 2009; Christopher Mackie; p. 29

I'll now look for books. Hiding T 12:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because a few newspapers call them "New Romantic" it doesn't mean they are, it just means the publications you sourced do not understand what the term means. The Human League in particular would have a fit if anybody ever labelled them as New Romantics. 88.110.253.194 (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested bands[edit]

I'm requesting comment on how best to summarise the fact that some bands are considered New Romantic by some sources, but are not considered New Romantic by others. I'm edit warring with an anonymous editor who refuses to engage on the talk page, so I need wider input to work out the best way forwards. My preferred approach is probably this version, which is sourced to Rimmer's New Romantics: The Look, the major work on the movement. Appreciate thoughts. Hiding T 09:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The bands (Human League, ABC, and Heaven 17) you have cited (and provided sources for which confirm the fact) were considered at the time to have been New Romantic bands. I was living in Dublin at the time and I well remember those bands having been constantly played at our New Romantic venue on the southside of Dublin city centre. I tried to state in this very article that the New Romantic scene was huge in Dublin, but it was challenged and removed. Oh well, I must have been just dreamin' in 1981 and 1982...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That is pure WP:OR! Typical of the factual accuracy of contributors to this page. Since when on earth were the left wing, northern, Heaven 17; New Romantics then? Rubbish, even by the so called defacto definition of the genre listed here they didn’t fit, where was the make up? the stupid bleached hair styles? frilly clothes? Martyn Ware’s jeans and beard; and Ian Craig Marsh’s donkey jacket and beanie combo are right up there with Boy George arent they. So let me get this right, because they played synthesiser based pop music in the early 1980s that must make them New Romantic. This article is a joke, there were only around four or five New Romantic bands, i.e Visage. People just keep making it up as the go along. Heaven 17 were never New Romantics! Laestrygonian3 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a sourced quotation from a reliable source, the very antithesis of original research. However, your editing of a sourced quotation to reflect your point of view breaches policy and guidance. Hiding T 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Heaven 17 were not New Romantics. Fact. Your quote says they are not! So why are they mentioned at all? Some credible Arab newspapers consider George Bush a Nazi, every (sane) person knows he isn't. But using your perverse logic I can amend The Nazi Party article and state "some people <ref> consider George Bush to be a Nazi" corrupting the article with a ridiculous but sourced statement. Have you any idea how insulting it is for serious, post punk musicians and producers Martyn Ware and Ian Craig Marsh to be lumped in with the likes of Boy George and Marilyn (singer) by people who don’t have a clue what they are writing about? What next the Beatles were Jazz? You can find a reliable source that says anything you want if you look hard enough. It’s an understanding of the subject, facts and plain common sense that make an article. This article should be about what New Romatics movement was, not bands that just had the label erroneously thrown at them by uninformed 1980s journalists. Might I suggest you leave it to someone with an proper understanding of the subject Laestrygonian3 (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please re-read our policy on writing from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not the place to set the record straight, it is the place to summarise secondary sources and reflect all view points with due weight. Since you agree that the article states that Heaven 17 were not New Romantics, I am failing to understand your exact objections. You agree that Heaven 17 have been referred to as a New Romantic band, and you agree that this is a point of view that has gained credence in the wider world. It is better for our readers to be told that Heaven 17 have been erroneously referred to as a New Romantic band than to leave them with the mistaken impression that Heaven 17 were not a New Romantic band. On Wikipedia we leave it to people with an understanding of the subject by summarising secondary sources, such as British Culture by David Christopher, who writes "early 1980s saw bands such as Gary Numan, Heaven 17, Spandau Ballet, Human League, Visage, OMD, Depeche Mode and others, using synthesisers and tapes to make restrained, refined, futuristic pop and dance music. The bands and their fans became known as New Romantics...". We don't get to write from our personal opinions or experiences. As for George Bush, I don't see how that relates, but I can point you to a number of articles where opinions that Bush equates to a nazi or a fascist are presented, and I can also point you to articles where it is claimed The Beatles played Jazz. Hiding T 11:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Why has George Bush (which one BTW, Bush senior or Dubya?) been included in this discussion on New Romantics? I can perhaps understand Reagan ot Thatcher being dragged onto this page, seeing as they were in power during the heydey of the New Romantic movement (1981-1982), but George Bush?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There is clearly no consensus for this information to be in this article and it functions quite well without it. 86.139.83.146 (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
OMD, THL, H17, Depeche Mode, ABC are all not New Romantic, never have been, don't self identify as Romantics, fans don't consider them romantics yet 1 individual insists on keeping listing them on this page. Fans of the bands will just keep removing them because it is simply wrong. Stick to Visage and other blitZ bands or this article will be in perpetual edit war. 82.132.136.211 (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are we discussing bands that may or may not have been 'New Romantic' ? An article is a place for undesputed facts not hypothasis on either side. If the subject matter cannot be decided on it probably shouldn't be in an encyclopedia in the first place.94.116.120.214 (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Please read our content policies. I'm going to request semi-protection to see if that will help implement the policies. Hiding T 09:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You will get bored before we do, libel will not be allowed to stand. You've been told they are not new romantics so get them off this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.155.162 (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Um, "libel"? I think that's over stating the case to the extreme. Hiding T 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I would not consider The Human League, Heaven 17, Depeche Mode, or ABC New Romantics and I don't believe anyone did back in the early 1980s - these are described as "new pop" I believe in Simon Reynolds' book Rip It Up & Start Again, and they were coming from an electronic music background rather than the glammed up camp synth pop of the new romantics - the obvious new romantic bands were the likes of Visage, Duran Duran, Classix Nouveaux, Japan, Spandau Ballet, and many of them moved on to something else fairly quickly. If we are going to include bands in this article I recommend looking for authoritative sources from closer to the era being discussed - several "New Romantic" compilation albums have had to use a broad interpretation of the term in order to compile an album's worth of material, and bands described by recent sources as New Romatics may have been considered quite differently back in the day. The simple answer is to only include the bands that we can all agree on.--Michig (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even say Japan were 'an obvious New Romantic band'. The list of such bands is very small because the term was only current in 1980 and 1981. By 1982 it was redundant.. which rules out Culture Club (who weren't synth based either, another prerequisite for any New Romantic combo). Wearing outlandish pseudo-historical costume and playing electronic dance pop during 1980-81 was the defining characteristic. Spandau Ballet, Visage, Duran Duran, Adam & the Ants and that's about it. Certainly not the Human League, Heaven 17, Culture Club, Depeche Mode, ABC, Japan, or even Ultravox, none of which would have embraced the term - quite the opposite in fact. Many of the latter more electronic bands were labelled 'futurist' at the time ... which was not synonymous with 'New Romantic' Vauxhall1964 (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at the minute[edit]

Is the consensus at the minute to then leave the article as is? If so, can we all agree to take the npov tag off? Hiding T 09:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sic?[edit]

In the quote by Dave Rimmer at the end of the 'music' section, a 'sic' is included. I'm not quite sure why; the grammar seems correct, and 'hubristic' IS a word.... 24.225.109.97 (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Two errors of fact in the intro to this item[edit]

The first paragraph attributes the origins of the term New Romantics by taking liberties with an interview cited in the Independent in 1994, which was itself a secondhand recycling from the 1980s.

This Wikipedia item asserts: "The term New Romantic was coined by Richard James Burgess in an interview with reference to Spandau Ballet.[1]"

That footnote takes you directly to the Independent archive where the relevant sentences read: "Did he [Adam Ant] feel as though he was part of a new musical movement? 'I think that the term New Romantic was really something the media made up. It was first quoted by Richard James Burgess, I think, and he was referring to Spandau Ballet who were really the New Romantic band, not Adam and the Ants. Our influences ranged from the Sex Pistols to Roxy Music and David Bowie - we were like the glam end of punk.'

First Adam "thinks" Burgess was the first to use it - ie, this is the hearsay of a popstar. Second, Adam *dissociates* himself from the NRs in the rest of this quote. Adam's genre was always glam-rock.

Yet the Wiki item ignores these two pieces of evidence, and insists that his band were part of the NR movement - not - and that Burgess *coined* the phrase - not. He may well have used it, as did many other people during 1980-81. Cognoscenti have long attributed the term to Perry Haines, first editor of i-D magazine. Writer Betty Page attributes its first use in print to Alan Lewis, editor of Sounds.

So with two profound errors of fact in the intro, why should we trust anything else in this item?(217.155.200.241 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)).

Adam Ant's views on the New Romantic era and the Ants' place in it vary according to what mood he is in - and more to the point what mental state he is in. However, there is a more direct link between the Ants and the Blitz scene, namely Marco Pirroni. Marco was effectively Steve Strange's landlord during the Blitz period and consequently had free passage into Blitz. He was and still is a big fan of both the music and the style of the Blitz and in fact his main downside to joining Adam and the Ants was having to go out and play the Ants Invasion tour to all the original (pre-1980) Ants' punk fans. "When you hung out at the Blitz with everyone looking pretty and made up and listening to music that I thought was new and exciting, it was very difficult to think 'Oh God, I've got to go back to the Electric Ballroom and play to bloody punks from Croydon with Crass painted on their backs'. Urgh! The scum!" (Source http://www.3ammagazine.com/musicarchives/2004/mar/interview_marco_pirroni.html )
Also several other associates of Adam & the Ants, including Jordan, early Ants' guitarist Johnny Bivouac and Adam's then-girlfriend Amanda Donohoe sporadically hung out at the Blitz. 95.144.241.44 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Credibility of Rimmer's book[edit]

Most of the discussion on this page is laughably ignorant since most of your points of reference are drawn from the past decade. The New Romantics lived and breathed 30 years ago.

For a start your header on this Wiki item is expressed as an -ism. I was there shoulder-to-shoulder in their ranks and never heard anybody at the time use the phrase "New Romanticism". These were people up for a fun time, not philosophers.

You are misguided if you believe Rimmer's New Romantics: The Look to be "the major work on the movement". The only book, yes. Published in 2003, a bit late in the day. Its commercial publisher made a colourful coffee-table book out of a cuttings job. Like so many music historians, plundering other people's texts after the event, he doesn't really "get it".

Of course Adam wasn't a Romantic. Nor were Bow Wow Wow. And the Romantics had all moved on by '83. You've only got to check the pop charts of that era. Despite its American perspective, AllMusic has been for 20 years the most reliable of all the music encyclopedias (mostly flaky), and pretty much assigns the right genres to the British bands of the day, so why don't some of your contributors actually check their facts and dates there, or even to contemporary sources?

Having said this, the first plausible account of the NRs was published only this year in a newspaper in the UK. I'm not surprised "Vauxhall1964" has closed his account. His name reveals him to be probably the only Brit trying to set this record straight, and seemingly losing the battle. "Laestrygonian3" talks good sense and he's retired too, though even he seems unaware of a concession by ABC's Martin Fry, that although not strictly Romantics, they did accept themselves as “a product of the times”. Artistes like to polish their histories after the event, but at the time frankly everyone wanted a No 1 hit. "Michig" talks sense too but should concede that several bands enjoyed riding the Romantics bandwaggon.

The continuing shortcoming of the Wikipedia method is that it disallows the lived experience of eye witnesses as "reliable" source material. Extraordinary. (217.155.200.241 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)).


                                                              • COMMENT: I thought these points were well elucidated. However, I'm still trying to get the Wiki description of punks as "austere and anti-fashion." That seemed to me the most laughable of all. --Brian Chidester, 08/28/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.191.216 (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Flock of Seagulls[edit]

I deleted this band from the list in the opening paragraph that has Rimmer's book as a reference. This book does not credit that band as being New Romantics. In fact they get one name check at the end of the book in a list of 80s mostly synth pop acts that came after the New Romantics. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Description?[edit]

Shouldn't there be some attempt to describe the style/fashion being talked about? This article is mainly a listing of bands associated with the "movement". --Dwchin (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Article's "tone"...[edit]

Do any other editors think that this article reads more like an essay than an article in an encyclopedia? Especially in the Music section, assertions and claims, while they might be true, do not seem to be backed up with verifiable information from reliable sources. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Problematic sources[edit]

I think some of the sourcing/references should be improved if possible. Refs #3 & #4 are to blogs written by nick-named bloggers/unknown persons. Refs #5a & 5b are to the highbeam version of a book review of "Blitzed!" (by Steve Strange). The information should perhaps come from the actual book, not from a review. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

+ Nobody in their right mind would trust Steve Strange's memoir of his fantasies, which is noticably short on checkable facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.200.241 (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Original research and essay style[edit]

Recent good faith changes to the article have increased some of its problems. It now contains a large amount of appropriately sourced statements that appear to be original research. It fails to follow the WP:MOS in a number of areas, particularly the use of statements, of which the one at the end of the penultimate sub-section is a good example, which are not in an encyclopedic style. Before adding more text please consider that claims that have no reliable sources may be deleted from an article and that an encyclopedic tone and neutral tone needs to maintained throughout an article.--SabreBD (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Given recent additions I also have to point out WP:W2W.--SabreBD (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Since New Romanticism was a very visually-oriented phenomenon in pop music, I believe it is very important that this article feature images of the key figures and bands associated with it. All images have appropriate licensing tags. Cities of the Plain (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Its an argument, but most of these images do not have a correct WP:non-free use rationale and this number of images almost certainly offend the guidelines on free alternatives and minimum use (see: WP:NFCC #1 and #3). They also do not fit the guidelines at WP:Images (particularly on forcing image size. I am going to remove them for now. Please read these guidelines carefully before reposting them, or some of them.--SabreBD (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Only three images (Steve Strange, Adam and the Ants, Culture Club) have been uploaded by me for this article, and I have given them proper licensing templates as suggested by User:Sabrebd. The remaining three images (Ashes to Ashes (David Bowie song), Quiet Life, Duran Duran) have been uploaded by other Wikipedia editors for those three other related articles. The original image resolution should be a moot point, as I have also taken out the size specifications, so all of the images for this article are now a normal, uniform size. Cities of the Plain (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thats good as it stands, but please note the WP:NFCC guidelines. Basically the use of so many non-free images is hard to justify and especially if free alternatives might exist.--SabreBD (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not aware of any alternative free images that would be appropriate for this article. However, I did put a fair bit of thought into selecting the images here.Cities of the Plain (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid the criteria is not whether we are aware of free alternatives, but whether they are available or could be created. In any case the issue of minimum use still applies. I know that these policies can seem puzzling and draconian at times, and I speak as someone who has had their own frustrations with them, but eventually someone will come and enforce them and if you want to avoid the removal of all the pictures it would be a good idea to consider trying to find free alternatives and what is the minimum needed to illustrate a encyclopedic point would be. I would suggest that five is probably more than is needed simply to illustrate a general fashion. It is also a good idea to make the point being illustrated clear on both the non-free rationale and in the picture caption where possible. The tag that has been placed on the article by another editor is basically giving editors time to sort out these issues, so some sort of change soon is necessary.--SabreBD (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The pic of Midge Ure from 1984 is not indicative of the New Romantic movement (for a picture to be included in any wiki article it has to directly illustrate the topic). In fact, it could be argued that Ure never exemplified it anyway since he didn't wear make-up or any of the ostentatious clothing associated with the New Romantic scene. He is often associated with New Romanticism purely because of his involvement with Visage and (erroneously) because Ultravox made synthpop. "New Romantic" was not a style of music, it was a look that certain musicians adopted. 88.104.30.215 (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly an argument worth considering, although in this case Ure seems to be sporting a poet shirt, although that is not entirely clear. The best solution would be to offer a copyright free alternative. If that is not possible, what about swapping the Japan picture, which is more indicative of the style?--SabreBD (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Ure is wearing a white shirt, that's all. That picture is not indicative in any way of the New Romantic movement (make up, classical clothing, etc). You will have to prove otherwise if you want to keep it. 88.104.31.235 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
No I do not have to prove it to keep it. The picture is appropriate to the article, at the very least illustrating one of the key people in the text and for the right period. If you want to replace it then please find a free alternative. I am open to discussions about the order and location of pictures, but there is no reason to remove a valid picture just because you do not like it.--SabreBD (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It's true that the picture of Midge Ure (and the one of Duran for that matter) are not appropriate for the article because they do not illustrate "new romanticism". When we use pictures in Wiki articles (free use or fair use) they have to illustrate the article subject, and not just vaguely. Ultravox were just a rock/pop band by 1984, and Ure is not dressed in New Romantic fashion in that picture. And Duran Duran wearing suits in 2009 is nothing to do with this article because they are not dressed as they were when they first started. The cover of Duran's first album is the definitive New Romantic photo of that band (flamboyant classical-period clothing, make-up, etc). Everything after 1981 would be irrelevant to this article (even Nick Rhodes stated that the New Romantic scene was over by the end of 1981, on Channel 4's Top Ten New Romantics programme). Kookoo Star (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at this pic of Ure from 81 [File:Ultravox 04111981 01 600.jpg]. Right period, but it looks as if it may be more "futurist" than New Romantic.--SabreBD (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
That picture doesn't typify New Romanticism either I'm afraid. It's just Midge Ure in a shirt and tie (even The Jam and Madness wore shirts and ties). Take a look at this webpage. The photos on there typify the New Romantic scene completely (especially the colour ones). It was all about the flamboyant clothes and make-up and wild hairstyles that people wore to clubs that played new wave music. I wonder if the owner of the website would consider uploading a couple of them to Wikipedia, because the one that is labeled "Actual New Romantics" (about halfway down the page) would be perfect as a main pic for this article. Does anybody want to contact him/her? Kookoo Star (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Trust me, I know what they look like, I was around at the time. Given the fun I have had getting copyright permission I wont be leaping to the front of the queue to volunteer. Some colour would be great, but personally I would love something like the second picture with Boy George, Marilyn, Martin Kemp, Tony Hadley conveniently standing outside the Blitz. However, since some of these are clearly publicity shots and others screen captures, I suspect that the website owner does not own the copy right. I have spent long hours trying to find copyright free pics for the article and with very little positive result. I would be very happy if someone else can come up with something, otherwise I think we may just have to live with the few pictures we have. A pity for something that was largely visual.--SabreBD (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it would hurt to ask the website owner if s/he owns the photo copyright and if they can be used. Regardless though, we shouldn't be using pictures that are not indicative of the New Romantic scene (like the Midge Ure and recent Duran pics) just because they are the only free ones we can get. I agree that an article about something that was all about visuals should have something to illustrate it, but it is better to have no pictures than wrong pictures. Kookoo Star (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You will notice I have not suggested putting the pictures back. I am not convinced that the pictures were inappropriate, but I think there is a shift here in what the article is about. Before I cleaned it up it was a music genre based article that (understandably) conflated New Romanticism with other things such as synthpop. In genre based articles pictures of artists as they are today or at some other point are often used. However, I increasingly think that this is really an article about a sub-culture that had a musical element and in that case, there does seem little point in having pictures that do not reflect the sub-culture. Are you suggesting that you will try to contact the website owner? I will probably drag the enthusiasm together for another copyright free trawl at some point. Had I known I would want these things for a future online encyclopedia I would have taken my camera with me a lot more back in the day.--SabreBD (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos (non-free)[edit]

There are a few of non-free photos here. Maybe one could be included. --Trevj (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

David Bowie's Influence[edit]

I am not sure here, but that people may be mistaken. I grew up more so in the 1980's, rather than the 70's, yet am familiar with David Bowie's work in the early part of the latter decade, and if this is to be associated with Romanticism, it must only be in an oblique sense. Yes, David picked up New Romanticism during his great pop success circa 1982 - 1984, but from what I know of the man, and comments he or his associates have made, I think it might rather be a more accurate comment that he was *influenced by* New Romanticism, rather than being one of the principle and seminal leaders. His work came at the height of this era, and so did, however, in a sense solidify New Romanticism as an accepted artistic, and cultural expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John G. Lewis (talkcontribs) 18:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bowie was influenced by the New Romantic movement in 1980 (and only 1980) for the Scary Monsters album. I wouldn't consider him to be a New Romantic or a "Blitz Kid", he just adopted the style, primarily for Ashes To Ashes which is often considered to be the song that brought New Romanticism into the mainstream. 88.104.22.253 (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

ABC[edit]

ABC were not New Romantics. They never dressed as New Romantics, never wore make-up, and Martin Fry has always stated that they were never New Romantics. In this interview [1] he states this quite clearly. The term "New Romantic" was often misused by the press to tag any early 80s band that used synthesizers (a problem that is even more apparent now), but this is not what the term means. Unless a band actually clearly self-identifies as New Romantics, we shouldn't be including them in this article as we are just propagating this misconception. 88.104.22.253 (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

ABC however WERE dressed totally as new romantics on some photos. Talk Talk also. Just google 'ABC 1982' or 'Talk Talk 1982' and you will find bunch of pics for these bands that were same fashion like Duran Duran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.157.137.222 (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is start class rating out of date?[edit]

I think this is overdue a reconsideration of its rating. It seems to me to be well beyond a start class article – I'd say closer to a C or B as it is comprehensive and has multiple reliable sources. Any opinions? Libby norman (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. But since I am a major contributor I cannot do it.--SabreBD (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)