Talk:Symphonic rock

List

This page seems more like a list to me.... --Snaxe920 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Moody Blues

Again, no mention of the grand-daddy of prog rock, The Moody Blues? My god, it was their producer who discovered King Crimson! I can still hear their influence on "In the Court of the Crimson King"! Even if you're too young to remember this fact (and it is documented fact, right on the Crimson CD!), you can't be too young to recognize The Trans-Siberian Orchestra as leaders of symphonic rock today (Again, no mention)! Man, this is bs at it's best. Use your ears, gents.

In response to above paragraph: The Trans-Suberian Orchestra are not symphonic rock. "Symphonic rock" is an anachronistic term for progressive rock, one that was used very early on in its history and is now only used to refer to those early bands or to modern neo-prog bands that play music exactly like those early bands.

To say that TSO are the leaders of modern prog is a total joke. They're a band based totally on Christmas, and their stuff is not remotely that influential or important, or even all that good, though it isn't bad.

As far as the Moody Blues is concerned, yes, they probably should be mentioned. Of course, the list just says "bands such as," as in, not an exhaustive list. And you could have just added their name in. Like I'm going to do right now.

If you say so. I stand rebuked.

Wow guys, don't you have anything better to do? The Moody Blues deserve a huge mention here, since they essentially created the genre, even though King Crimson is credited as such. TSO may be utterly irrelevant, but they would seem to be the leaders of modern SYMPHONIC rock. I can't even name another symphonic rock band around now. Not one that wasn't formed in 1965-1977, that is. And TSO does have a non-Christmas album. --72.85.1.136 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Trans-Siberian Orchestra released non-Christmas themed albums: Beethoven's Last Night (2000) and Night Castle (2009). I picked up both and would lean toward not including them because they are both good, but not Progressive. Firstlensman (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As for not being able to name another Symphonic Prog band, you definitely have not been up-to-date on the music scene. Check out the Flower Kings, Transatlantic, Spock's Beard, Le Orme, Echolyn, and many, many more. Firstlensman (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As King Crimson, Pink Floyd and other bands have there own subtitle under "bands", shouldn't The Moody Blues get one too? Maybe mentioning the fact that Deram Records had asked them to make a rock version of Dvorak's "New World Symphony". After all, "Days of Future Passed" was released in 1967, quite sometime before the other bands mentioned released their first symphonic rock albums. --60darling (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

NOT

added a note that Symphonic Rock is not "Boston Pops plays Metallica!" (with a picture of a black steel cello with blood dripping off the bow) Spikeysnack (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There's TOO much of that in here -- It needs to be cleaned up! But, I'm afraid that any edits I do will be reversed. Is there a way to get exclusive ownership of this page and do a complete re-write? Firstlensman (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes

Yes, I added, yes, a Yes entry. Yes. Yes,I did. sue me. Spikeysnack (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Beatles, KC

I agree somewhat about the Beatles , and King Crimson as progenitors. Spikeysnack (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Beatles can go on a "Proto-Progressive" or "Progressive Rock Influences" page. Firstlensman (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

cleanup

I'm tired now but there seems to be some duplication of data still but minor. Spikeysnack (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Article

There are many incomplete sentences. (see Attributes Of Symphonic Rock)

List

If the bands name is not all uppercase do not type it that way.

Attempted Suggested Clean Up

I removed the long list of neo-bands that was added, due to consideration of not providing more information than is needed for an encyclopedia entry. Also because many are too obscure to be verifiable as being symphonic in nature without some time consuming research. I think it best to limit examples to bands whose symphonic natures are well documented, rather than delving into the obscure. A link to an external site on the subject could provide that additional information. Perri Rhoades

Neo-Prog bands belong on the Neo-progressive rock page. Firstlensman (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

put bandlist back and cleaned up

I added the list back and checked that all entries exist in wikipedia. Added some junk but it looks good now. My consideration: someone who comes here wants to know the names of bands that play Symphonic Rock that they don't already know. [[User:spikeysnack] Spikeysnack (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else deleted the bandlist section, but I am agreeing with the deletion. 80% of the bands in the list were either not Symphonic Prog bands and/or belong on other pages. Firstlensman (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Recommended?

Does anyone else think "Also Recommended" is kinda cheesy? --72.85.1.136 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheesy? Yes. Feel free to remame it if you can think of something better. Perri Rhoades 08:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Encyclopedias shouldn't "recommend" things; they report facts. A section the sole purpose of which is a recommendation, rather than containing further information, should be deleted. Aiwendil42

Actually, I agree with you. But the fact nobody around here wants to face is that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It's an over glorified message board. And if I delete the section, people will just keep putting their suggestions up, only they'll be putting them in the main article.

The section is there for damage control. And if you remove it, you get the job of watching the article 24 hours a day to clean up the trash, because you were the one who thought it was a good idea to remove the trash can.

You also get the happy job of explaining to over enthusiastic fans why their recommendations are not valid content. Be my guest if you have the stomach and free time for it. I don’t, and nobody else was doing it. That’s why I installed the trash can.

If you had any sense you’d leave it there, but this is Wikipedia. I know good sense, foresight and creative reasoning are a bit much to hope for. *tosses you the keys* It’s your article now. Have fun. Perri Rhoades 13:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sense? Get off your pedestal. If you're looking for stimulating intellectual discourse on progressive rock, head to a message board. But in the interest of maintaining a semblance and modicum of neutrality of the article, the recommendations section will be tagged as original research. (And, in the absence of valid citations, it would appear to be little more that just that.) I'd be more than willing to accept its presence if one could offer a sourced, non self-serving, list of "recommended" albums. (Even though, the presence of even this is debatable and borderline superfluous) If this isn't rectified, the section will be removed. It's really quite simple actually. Quite rational. Quite sensible, even. C. M. Reed 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please consider "Art in America" under the neo prog label (first rock band with a pedal string harp). If not that's cool, whatever. 1st album produced by Eddy Offord on CBS/Pavillion in 1983. Just finished a 6 song project with David Hentschel and self released with bonus tracks, called "Hentschel Sessions - 2013". This page seems to be monitored and heavily edited, therefore this is a request, I don't want to just pop my edit on a page that much work has been contributed and maintained. Thank you. Chris Flynn (crootnik)

Beatles

Didn't the Beatles pretty much invent Symphonic Rock with Eleanor Rigby? As far as I know, that was the first song that used classical instruments as an integral part of the song. I was suprised to not see any mention of them. Nairebis (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Eleanor Rigby has only one of the attributes listed in the article for being "symphonic rock," Beatle influence of Symphonic Rock was much more indirect, with their song development, use of sounds, and the extra studio time that later became available to musicians. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No! They were an influence and belong on a "Proto-Progressive" or "Progressive Rock Influences" page. Hey, I seem to be repeating myself! ;-) Firstlensman (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fire on high

Didn't you mean Fire on High by ELO ( Electric Light Orchestra ) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.252.232 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Kings and Queens

That section is useless, and I think should be deleted. Ngmweb (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It just some observational humor. [[User:spikeysnack] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.63.150 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! I'm Deleting It!!! Firstlensman (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Black Mages

wouldn't the Black Mages fall under this category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.241 (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NO! Black Mages belongs on the Progressive Metal page. Firstlensman (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Beatles, Beach Boys, and other assorted edits

Just because a rock band decided to have a string section in one or two songs, doesn't make it "Symphonic Progressive". These entries and quotes should be removed and put on a separate genre page called "Proto-Progressive". This is the term that is now in use to lump those bands that started to use techniques, sparsely I might add, that hinted at the development of full blown Progressive Rock. But, if everyone agrees, the page could be called "Progressive Rock Influences". But, I would prefer "Proto-Progressive".

Also, epic albums like Tommy and Quadrophenia are also proto-progressive in nature and should be on the new "Proto-Progressive" page.

The albums that should be mentioned as the first Symphonic Progressive albums are Trespass by Genesis and Emerson, Lake & Palmer by ELP. Although I myself would include Days Of Future Passed by The Moody Blues with these two. The other albums mentioned belong in other Prog categories:

• "In The Court Of The Crimson King" by King Crimson (1969) - Eclectic Prog
• "H to He, Who Am the Only One" by Van der Graff Generator (1970) - Eclectic Prog
• "Hot Rats" by Frank Zappa (1969) - Avant Prog
• "Stand Up" by Jethro Tull (1969) - Progressive Folk
• "Piper At The Gates Of Dawn" (1967) by Pink Floyd - Psychedelic/Space Rock
• "Phallus Dei" by Amon Duul II (1969) - Krautrock
• "Magma (Kobaia)" by Magma (1970) - Zeuhl
• "Trout Mask Replica" by Captain Beefheart (1969) - Avant Prog
• "Gentle Giant" by Gentle Giant (1970) - Eclectic Prog
• "Mr. Fantasy" by Traffic (1967) - Eclectic Prog
• "Caravan" by Caravan (1968) - Canterbury

Also, there are a boat load of groups mentioned that shouldn't be in any way. KISS is not a Symphonic Progressive band just because they put out an album with an orchestra on it. Groups such as Radiohead, Muse, Mars Volta and Coheed & Cambria are all "New Prog" (or "Nu Prog" depending on who you ask) bands. There is already a New Prog page for them.

And out of all the bands listed for the 1990s & 2000s, there are a lot of true Symphonic Progressive bands that are not even mentioned: Transatlantic, The Flower Kings, Spock's Beard, Karmakanic, Echolyn, Anglagard, Discipline, Nexus, Solaris, 5bridgeS, Par Lindh Project, After Crying, Isildur's Bane, White Willow, Tempus Fugit, Kaipa, Izz, Cairo, and many others.

I would like to change this page and clean it up. I put this here to solicit feedback on these changes. Firstlensman (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated The Artists Section

Please review and suggest changes here. Firstlensman (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Horrible should be made into prose and highlight advancements in the genre, not just list "Artist A" did this in "year x" also why are the band names bolded, there is an established manual of style for articles. Not even sure why there is an artists section in this article it should all be done in prose. Ridernyc (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just cleaning up the section in the format it was originally written. Cleaning out the artists that shouldn't be there and adding the major artists that should be there. I like your idea about including advancements in the genre. Let me see what I can do. If you feel the bold is too distracting, I will remove it. Thanks for the feedback. Firstlensman (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at an article3 like Black metal, it's about the genre not about any of the bands. I'm sure there 100's of bands that can be listed but that's not what genre articles are for. Ridernyc (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree that a History and Styles section need to be added to clarify the development of Symphonic Prog. The Black Metal page however is analogous to the Progressive Rock page. A lot of Progressive Rock's development is covered there and on the Timeline of progressive rock page. The Symphonic page is more like what's under the Black Metal's "Stylistic Divisions" section. Each section there gives a brief explanation of the differences and a list of some of the important bands. Firstlensman (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all of those are articles that were merged into the main article at some point. Ridernyc (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed most of the bolding as per Ridernyc's suggestion. Firstlensman (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Now every band has it's own sections which is even worse. Plus I see no effort being made to dource an of this. I vote the entire section is just removed. Ridernyc (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are references throughout the page to my sources. I highlighted the sub-sections to make it easier to scan. I think it looks good, IMHO. I've mentioned major albums along with the groups in order to guide readers unfamiliar with Symphonic Prog to these essential works. I'd like more feedback from other editors. Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove WP:NOR & "Original Research" Flags From This Page

I have many references to the information I presented in the Artists section. I did not use any references that any editors felt were no good (i.e. Prog Archives, GEPR, et. al.). I've requested that the WP:NOR be removed, but have not received a reply. Then, the page was flagged for containing Original Research. I don't think I have to have a reference on each and every sentence I wrote in the Artists section. But, I can do so if needed. I'd like to remove the "Original Research" flag from this page. If someone has an issue with any information, please point it out. Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is still some original research in the article then the phrase "This article may contain original research" should remain at the top of the article. Only when the phrase is not valid should the tag be removed. Plenty of unsourced phrases in the "Artists" section e.g. why is the source in the ELP section placed where it is? Is it just bad placing or does the source not consider The Endless Enigma and Karm Evil 9 to be classics? And if the latter is true why are they listed?

And if it isn't common knowledge (e.g. the colour of the sky), a statement must be sourced - see WP:V. Una Laguna^Talk 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

See my response to the posting following this section. As for references on specific songs such as "Tarkus", it's there because the book "Rocking The Classics" contains a detailed breakdown of "Tarkus" the other works are covered by "All Music" and "The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia Of Rock And Roll". Firstlensman (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, "All material added to articles on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text." Firstlensman (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That refers to using the footnotes system I believe. You still must provide thhe sources for everything, because it's an encyclopedia article, not an opinion piece. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me know what items you feel need an explicit reference. Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In a word, everything. Una Laguna^Talk 17:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

While I'm here... (some things I noticed)

I'm not very familiar with the workings of music-related articles, but a few things stood out. They're mostly minor things like punctuation and whatnot but they drag the article down:

• There are a lot of unencyclopedic/POV-esque examples of wording e.g. King Crimson's In The Court Of The Crimson King (1969) exploded onto the scene..., Rick Wakeman was an on again-off again, keyboard wizard for Yes..., Unfortunately, they did not have a recognizable lead singer...
• There is also unnecessary capitalisation: why are "Prog", "Rock", "Symphonic Rock" captalised throughout (even when the latter disagrees with the article's title)? Unless a genre name includes a proper noun (e.g. Italian prog) there's no reason to capitalise it.
• Album titles should be italicised and song titles written with quotation marks (e.g. Foxtrot and "Supper's Ready").
• If symphonic rock originated from Britain and is a "British" topic, the article should be written in British English.

I don't like nagging but these things just jumped out at me. I can't help but feel a large article which needs careful thought given to its structure would have benefited from being worked on in a Sandbox first. Hope this helps, Una Laguna^Talk 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of what you are pointing to as "unecyclopedic/POV-esque" are in fact encyclopedic & supported by the other pages here on Wikipedia as well as other sources. For example, the concise statement "Rick Wakeman was an on again-off again, keyboard wizard for Yes" is totally supported by the Yes and Rick Wakeman pages. Rick joined Yes in 1971 for Fragile, left after Tales From Topographic Oceans, joined again in 1977 for Going For The One, left after Tormato, joined again in 1989 for Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe, left after Union, joined again in 1996 for Key To Ascension, left before the KTA tour, joined again in 2002, and then left in 2004. The King Crimson quote is supported by the sources I've referenced including All Music, Rocking The Classics, and others. As for the "British English" non-sequitur, a) I am not British, and b) If I was writing about Salsa music, I wouldn't be writing the article in Spanish! Firstlensman (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Italicized all album titles & "quoted" all song titles. Firstlensman (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My problem isn't so much what you're saying as much as how you're saying it. Most of my issues relate to the use of peacock terms, King Crimson exploded on to the scene... and keyboard wizard being prime examples. In addition, writing something here or formatting something here because it features somewhere else on Wikipedia is not a good guideline (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS): you need to be careful the articles you use as models aren't riddled with flaws themselves. That's what Wikipedia's guidelines are for. My point regarding British vs. American spelling is based on Wikipedia's guidelines here: the symphonic rock movement originated from Britain and most of the bands mentioned are British. Una Laguna^Talk 16:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Subjective adjectives are just that - Subjective. How much is "very"? What is meant by "exploded". What does/did Wakeman do to make him a "wizard". Sure, he's one of the most brilliant keyboardists of all time, but can you find a reliable book covering progressive and symphonic rock that makes that claim? If not, we have to settle at calling him a keyboard virtuoso.

Basically, the changes you've made benefit this page immensely. It just needs to be clarified and made more to-the-point, because as I mentioned above, we're writing an encyclopedia and not an opinion piece. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the King Crimson and Rick Wakeman wording. Any others? Firstlensman (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of peacock terms so I'm not going to list them all. The best thing to do would be to familiarise yourself with the guidelines (see WP:APT) and then comb through the article. Here are a couple of specific examples:

• Hackett, prior to leaving Genesis, released his own symphonic prog masterpiece Voyage of the Acolyte (1975).
• Unfortunately, they did not have a recognisable lead singer like Yes... - although this is more generally an example of unnecessary word usage

I've also noticed quite a few weasel words (vague, often unsourced sentences). Again, I'll only point out a couple but it would be best if you familiarised yourself with the guidelines (WP:AWW):

• Focus III (1972) and Hamburger Concerto (1974) were regarded by many as classics
• they are considered by critics to be too "psychedelic"...

Una Laguna^Talk 17:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the issues that Una Laguna mentioned above were already fixed. I went in and fixed the rest. Please review. Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To Whomever Keeps Keeps Changing The Suffixes -ized and -izable To -ised and -isable

Please refrain from doing so. The Wikipedia spellchecker does not recognize the spelling of "recognised". If the spell checker did, I would have left the change alone. Instead, I reverted them. Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Recognised" is the British English spelling, which should be used for reasons discussed above (WP:TIES). Una Laguna^Talk 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Symphonic Prog started in the United Kingdom, but I have covered bands from the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and many other countries. It is not strictly a UK phenomenon. Firstlensman (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, WP:TIES states that if an article has strong ties with a particular English-speaking nation then the article should use the English of that nation. Symphonic rock has stronger ties with the UK than with any other nation mentioned in the article, by a long way. Of the bands with sections devoted entirely to themselves, all save one (Focus) are British, and all the major influences on the genre are British. That a few non-British bands get a passing mention does not negate Wikipedia's guidelines. Una Laguna^Talk 11:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Recognized" is a British English spelling. There is a trend in the UK to use 'ise' in popular writing because using the strictly correct suffix requires a knowledge of whether the word is of Greek or French origin. See Oxford spelling. This is something that the public school educated prog musicians would have been well aware of. An example is 'photosynthesize' spelt thus by Gabriel in the lyrics of Hogweed.

Article structure/example articles

I've had a look through to try and find some high-quality articles which might be helpful in deciding on the structure and content of the article:

• Punk rock (featured article)
• Alternative rock (good article)
• Industrial metal (good article)

Of these, Industrial metal is probably the most useful article to us, as it is a similarly "niche" part of a genre.

From these, I think we can see that a good structure for the article should be something along these lines:

• Characteristics of the genre: musical and lyrical style. It might be worth mentioning live shows in this section, unless there's enough information for live shows to justify a section unto themselves.
• History including pre-history, rise in popularity, decline, and follow-up genres/movements. This would replace the current band-by-band format, improving the flow of the article and making it more engaging for the reader.

Perhaps once we have more material for the article we can chop it up so that it conform to this structure. Any comments? Una Laguna^Talk 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The History of Progressive Rock is covered pretty much in the Progressive rock page. Here I presented the major bands in order of their first true Symphonic Prog album (which may or may not be their very first album). By doing that I gave it a historical timeline focusing on Symphonic Prog only and not covering any other types of prog that these bands produced. I will check the Industrial Metal page and review it's structure. Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Skillet

Removing Skillet since there is no reference I can find for this band. In the future, if you want to add a band, post a request in the discussion first. Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

New Trolls

Removed New Trolls because, after reviewing all available information, they are considered a Progressivo Italiano band (see Italian progressive rock). Their symphonic works are found soundtrack albums rather than on Progressive albums. Firstlensman (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

decided to include a section on Italy that cites New Trolls since there is some crossover between Progressivo Italiano and Symphonic Prog. Firstlensman (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Klaatu

Klaatu is a Beatles-esque rock band with orchestral tendencies. It is by no means a Symphonic Prog band. Removed their section from the page. Firstlensman (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No offence, but what is the point of this page?

'Symphonic rock' is a rarely-enough used term, and is, to the best of my knowledge, even more rarely employed to mean what this page's authors purport it to mean. Certainly for an encyclopaedic article there should be some decent citations to prove the existence of some kind of consensus as to its meaning.

Simply typing the words into Google, for instance, reveals that the term 'symphonic rock' is - in so far as it is used at all - by the world at large (including allmusic.com and amazon.com), to mean 'underworked symphony orchestra plays a selection of rock classics in a city near you'. Moreover, the actual attempt to define the supposed genre is ridiculously broad: by way of example, both The Flaming Lips and Iced Earth would adequately meet every criterion on the list.

The first half of the article is nothing more than a lacklustre list of late '60s/early '70s British prog rock bands, whose entries comprise little more than some rather thin justifications for the lumping of rather musically disparate groups into one rather contrived and meaninglessly vague subgenre.

More amusingly, the second half of the list seems entirely to abandon even this pretence at utility, and merely drops the names of a number of other prominent progressive rock bands, without a single citation to suggest the 'symphonic rock' term has ever been consistently applied to them. (And no, footnoting albums doesn't count.)

In short: what does this page add to an encyclopaedia? An article on 'Classic British Prog', if it went into some meaningful depth on the genre's history and the scene in which these bands existed, might have some use as an expansion to the Progressive Rock page, but as it is this adds nothing. A cynic would suggest that somebody from progarchives.com had created the page in an effort to popularise their (frankly contrived and rather bizarre) self-invented categories...

Sanzen-Baker (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this page has some serious problems. I have mixed feelings about whether this article is notable and encyclopedic. It is true that the term seems to be used in the sense outlined above for 'underworked symphony orchestra plays a selection of rock classics in a city near you'. However, a google book search turns up a lot of references to the sense used in this article, albeit these are ill defined and brief. The Allmusic article on prog rock contains the line: "Prog-rock began to emerge out of the British psychedelic scene in 1967, specifically a strain of classical/symphonic rock led by the Nice, Procol Harum, and the Moody Blues (Days of Future Passed)", but that is all that is said. My difficulty is whether this constitutes a sub-genre or just a tendency within progressive rock. The article itself indicates the way in which it was used for short periods or on specific tracks by most bands. In that case the article should really be "Classical music in progressive rock". I remain undecided about that issue at the moment. It may be possible to find reliable sources to turn this article into some meaningful prose, but the track by track listing should probably go. Unfortunatly I do not have the time to devote to this at the moment, but if nothing has been resolved in a few weeks I will try to get back to it.--SabreBD (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your main complaint that the bulk of the article is little more than a list of prog bands is something I completely agree with. As you can see above, I pointed this out to the main contributor on the article, pointed to a couple of example articles and suggested that the article be re-structured, something they rejected for not entirely clear reasons (they seem to be assuming prog rock and symphonic rock are almost exactly the same thing, and so there was little point in writing out the same history in two Wikipedia articles).

The Progarchives influence is something I've also noticed. The term "symphonic prog" (which I have only seen used on Progarchives) is used interchangeably with "symphonic rock", perhaps even more frequently. Consequently, this article seems quite confused: it suggests to the reader that symphonic rock is a subgenre of progressive rock. "Symphonic prog" is, but as I understand it symphonic rock is a genre which merely overlaps with progressive rock, although I'll concede my knowledge of the genre (if it even exists as a standalone genre) is somewhat limited. Una Laguna^Talk 08:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have said that a lot of these points had been made above. Especially important is the confusion over symphonic prog, which is vary rare in sources outside the eclectic prog archives. One solution might be to move the list to an article called "List of symphonic rock acts" or something similar. and then reconstruct the article as a prose description of the genre. This reminds me a lot of the situation with Art rock: prog rock and art rock overlap, but they are not quite the same thing. Of course that article would be a lot better if it were properly sourced. So my concrete proposals are:

• remove the list of bands to another article
• reconstruct this one to explain the relationship to prog rock and the use of the term outside of that context.

Views welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like the best course of action to me, although I unfortunately have neither the time nor sources to make significant contributions. Una Laguna^Talk 10:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be a while for me also, not least because I will be away next week. It gives time for any futher suggestions or reasoned objections. I will get to it when I can unless telling points are made here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a sub-genre page. It is a sub-genre of Progressive Rock. Therefore, as a sub-genre, the music has to be considered Progressive Rock as defined on the Progressive Rock page. This page was cleaned up precisely because it contained references to bands such as KISS that happened to use a symphony orchestra on an album. Or, contained albums by the London Symphony Orchestra that played Beatles tunes. Other such entries by casual readers were chugging up this page despite the description of the sub-genre which hasn't been changed a lot (only added the one line stating that the music had to be progressive in addition to being symphonic for clarification purposes) and the upper left hand box stating that it WAS a sub-genre of progressive rock (which wasn't changed).

Also, as a sub-genre page, It only defines what distinguishes it from other forms of Progressive Rock. As a reader who may or may not be familiar with the sub-genre, the page should go a long way to identify those artists that fall under this category, and why. It will hopefully guide the reader to seek out these artists and works and allow them to listen to what is considered Symphonic Rock or Symphonic Prog. The term Symphonic Progressive has been around a long, long time. It is not the creation of progarchives.com. It is used in many books and web sites, some of which I have cited (including amazon.com, gepr.net, progressiveworld.net, progressor.net, proggnosis.com, et. al.).

The artists are arranged in a somewhat chronological order based on the release of their first symphonic prog album (which may or may not be their first albums). Therefore it guides the reader through the development, collapse and reemergence of symphonic progressive rock. There are over 150 albums cited that the reader can then seek out and listen to themselves.Firstlensman (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd entirely forgotten about this page and my bafflement with it. Two years have passed, and I see very little change or improvement, as well as still no citations for the list of criteria which supposedly define this supposed genre.

As a summary of everything that's wrong with it, let's just look at the Pink Floyd entry:

"Pink Floyd are usually not included in the symphonic rock genre because they are considered by critics to not be "orchestral" enough in sound.[5] However, their 1970 album Atom Heart Mother contains the "Atom Heart Mother" suite with extensive orchestra use. By Meddle (1971), specifically the suite "Echoes", they moved in the direction of symphonic prog rather than psychedelic rock. With albums such as Wish You Were Here (1975),[2] an ode to former band member Syd Barrett and screed against the music business and Animals (1977), a concept album based on Animal Farm by George Orwell, they were firmly in the realm of symphonic prog.

However, concerning Pink Floyd, the term 'symphonic rock' can quite literally be attributed to "The Trial" off The Wall. It is set up in the manner of a Broadway-esque musical number, complete with string and brass ensembles, and is only topped by David Gilmour's guitar riff."

To start with, there's good reason Pink Floyd are not included in the "symphonic rock" genre; stepping aside or now from the question of whether it's a coherently definable "genre" at all, it's because the only tenuous connection they have to it, even as it is defined here, is that Atom Heart Mother, one of their more obscure albums, had an orchestra on it. The remainder of the entry provides no grounds for treating the band's (much more successful, indeed defining) mid-70s material as "symphonic", yet discussion of them comprises around 80% of their entry; why is it mentioned at all? As for The Wall being Broadway-esque, whether that's a reasonable assessment or not, it again does nothing to justify the "symphonic rock" label.

Also, is "symphonic prog" meant to meant to mean something distinct from "symphonic rock"? If so, bloody hell, it's the first I've heard of it in many, many years listening to that I always thought was just called "prog rock". I still really don't see this page as being either encyclopaedic or useful.

Sanzen-Baker (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested Citations Added

Added the Citations that were requested for this page. Please review. Thanks! Firstlensman (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ilaiyaraaja

Removed section because I found no reference of Ilaiyaraaja being a Symphonic Prog artist. He is a noted soundtrack musician with no Progressive aspects in his music. Firstlensman (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

PsuedoComplaints

Well, now ... First of all I would not expect anyone who doesn't like Symphonic Rock to contribute to this page in the first place, but it seems they have. The page as it stands now is pretty well done, except that Sympho Prog has a huge and myriad variance and infinite nuances so it is hard to pin down. I think that is at the heart of these complaints ( "My Favorite Prog band is dissed" ) . Still The article feels too restrained and "dry" for such a fantastically vibrant and living subject. This isn't your GrandDad's encyclopedia and it shouldn't try to sound like it. Plus .. talking about music only gets you 1/10 of the way to understanding so without hearing the bands' musics there is just no satisfaction to be had. Links to audio?

I think the modern era section needs filling out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeysnack (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into doing just that... I have been listening to as well as researching a lot of current Symphonic Prog! Firstlensman (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what I've been asking! Thanks for confirming that I did indeed include all necessary citations! Firstlensman (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Prog to Symphonic Prog

I've been listening to a lot recent albums by Neo-Prog bands from the 1980s. I feel that a lot of the current groups should now be considered Symphonic Prog bands! For instance, I've been listening to Subterranea and Frequency by IQ and they are definitely NOT Neo-Prog anymore. Should I include these bands in the update concerning recent Symphonic Prog that I am developing? Firstlensman (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Deep Purple

Would a section about Deep Purple be of interest? Considering works such as Concerto for Group and Orchestra[1] and "April"[2]? – SmiddleTC@ 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• As with other entries proposed in the Talk section, Deep Purple is at best a Crossover Prog band. Use of an orchestra does not make a work Symphonic Prog. The work has to do more, as outlined in the definition at the top of the page, in order for it to be considered Symphonic Prog. Even if it was Symphonic Prog in nature, one work on one album that was more classical than Symphonic Prog is not mentionable. Firstlensman (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Globus

Removed Globus from the Artists section as it is an Alternative/Goth rock band and NOT a Symphonic Prog band. Just because they use an orchestra does not make them a Symphonic Prog band as per the definition at the top of the page! Firstlensman (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"proposed merge"

Someone seems to have drive-by tagged Progressive rock and Symphonic rock with a merge tag. That's not how it's supposed to work. If you want to propose to merge two articles, you should actually propose it on the talk page, and explain why, so that consensus can be reached, not just tag with no explanation. For my part I would say that it might not be a good idea to merge the articles since they're both pretty long and a distinction must evidently be made. If the differences in styles can be adequately explained in one article, so be it, but just judging by the level of influence in Symphonic rock at a glance it would seem notability is not the issue here. I don't really know about the subject, so I can't speak to how things could be written into one article and yet keep people from being confused about the distinction in genre. I'm going to remove the merge tag, since no one discussed it in so many months at all, but if someone puts the tag back, at least this is somewhere you could start the discussion. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, these are two different topics and they should not be merged. Hoverfish Talk 11:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support — This is basically a made up "genre" defined by editors from several years ago in this article's history. I've tried looking up the term "symphonic rock" all over the internet and can find almost nothing substantial about it. I agree with everything @Sanzen-Baker: said back in August 2010 (#No offence, but what is the point of this page?).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Procol Harum

Procol Harum are just mentioned for "In Held 'Twas in I" of their Shine On Brightly album, but not for their epic album Procol Harum Live In Concert with the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra not? I think they should have an own section along with Emerson, Lake & Palmer and the rest. Hoverfish Talk 11:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• An article on Symphonic Prog does not include other types of Progressive Rock. After their first two albums, that have Symphonic Rock masterpieces on them, they changed and become more of a Crossover Prog band on later albums. A page devoted to Crossover Prog should definitely have a Procol Harum section on it. As for Live albums -- they are just rehashing works that have been recorded on studio albums. Only live albums that contain newly recorded works (i.e. not appearing on any previous album) are considered in the history timeline of a band. Firstlensman (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Alan Parsons Project

This article seems to assert there was very little symphonic rock in the '80s. Doesn't Alan Parsons Project count?

• Their first album "Tales Of Mystery And Imagination" (1976) is the only one that falls into the Symphonic Prog category. After that they are firmly in Crossover Prog (and Pop) territory. Firstlensman (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?

In the 'End of the 'classic' period' section, the decline of symphonic rock is illustrated with absence in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. But that's in the US. So no wonder almost no symphonic rock bands are featured there. It's very much not US music, almost exclusively European. Even the US bands that are mentioned aren't quite symphonic rock, I'd say. So I don't see the point of mentioning that here. It should be in the article on that Hall of Fame. Or, if it is to stay here, it might be moved to the 'North America' section. DirkvdM (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Actually this very information, i.e. that it is mainly a European scene, would be a useful addition in the article, if a reliable source could be quoted. And yes, I am for moving this mention to the North America section, IF it is to stay. Hoverfish Talk 18:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I will disagree with you that it is "not US music" since Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart and Miles Davis to name a few were all Progressive Rock or Fusion acts that heavily influenced King Crimson's 1969 album "In The Court Of The Crimson King" as well as Renaissance's 1969 album "Renaissance". The British Progressive Rock bands Yes (starting with "The Yes Album" [1971]), Genesis (starting with "Trespass" [1970]), and Gentle Giant (starting with "Gentle Giant" [1970]) started with or made the switch to Progressive rock AFTER King Crimson. So, there's your provenance. Firstlensman (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Galjila and Tako

Galjila (Crossover Prog) and Tako (Psychedelic/Space Rock) are not Symphonic Prog bands. Removed them. Firstlensman (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Tako had only two albums from which their styles changed from song to song. They played MOSTLY space rock and Canterbury style jazz fusion. To put them on a page featuring Symphonic Prog just because a couple of their songs were Symphonic is not productive. We could put a whole host of bands who did a smattering of symphonic on a couple of albums. I as the author of the page do not think that it is productive to do so. Firstlensman (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Galija is definitely a Crossover Prog band who at best tended to copy Queen and Jethro Tull. Putting Symphonic flourishes over Pop influenced songs does not make them a Symphonic Prog band. Firstlensman (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sounding symphonic is not an automatic include. We are covering a subset of Progressive Rock called Symphonic Prog. For instance, Queen and Styx are not represented here because they are considered Crossover Prog bands at best. Some of their output definitely sounds symphonic. The Neo-Progressive bands are just mentioned in passing because the Neo-Progressive movement was basically a bridge between the classic era and the new era of Symphonic Prog. But no write-ups for Neo-Progressive bands appear here. A lot of the Neo-Progressive bands definitely sounded symphonic. In both cases, the bands did not achieve the other requirements for being a Symphonic Prog band. I would recommend that Crossover Prog and Space Rock pages be developed for the bands listed above. Firstlensman (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Need writeups in the '1990s Resurgence section

Need writeups for The Flower Kings, Spock's Beard, Transatlantic, Karmakanic, Nexus, Pär Lindh Project, Arena, and Glass Hammer. Firstlensman (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed entry for MCT

This is a relatively new band that has a couple You Tube videos but no albums. I've checked music sources and cannot find a discography anywhere. They may be worthy to be included on this list when they are established like all the other bands here. But, at this time, I am removing them. Firstlensman (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Symphonic rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100403005002/http://muse.mu:80/shop/product/245/exogenesis/menu/4/singles/ to http://muse.mu/shop/product/245/exogenesis/menu/4/singles/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jon Lord

Jon Lord of Deep Purple definitely deserves mention. Some of his solo albums are symphonies with rock instruments, Sarabande (album) for one. 192.101.80.14 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd go further and state an entry on him could also include his work with Deep Purple drawing on classical influences, making a passing reference to the orchestral work of Deep Purple, then discuss his solo career as a composer of symphonic rock.--192.101.80.14 (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cello rock

So if there is a cello on the song and it's a rock song it must be cello rock? I don't think so! It's not a genre Richhoncho (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Conditioned agreement - It appears to be a newly invented genre and the result of WP:OR. The article dates back to 2006 and no reliable source has been found to justify the existence of the subgenre since then. If some references can be provided, it seems logical to append the content to the symphonic rock article. Lewismaster (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Symphonic Prog is SO much more than including classical instruments into rock songs. Just read the definition of Symphonic Prog on this page and you will see that Cello Rock definitely does not belong here. Same goes for bands like KISS that used a symphony on one of their albums, or The Beatles that used strings in some of their songs. Firstlensman (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not suggested that Symphonic rock is unnecessary, what I wonder is whether there is any value in Cello rock and should any (if any) relevant information be merged into this article. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added sources.--Drummer (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect – No merge; there's nothing that says cello rock has anything to do with symphonic rock, but it's the closest thing to the topic..--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect - There is no indication of any notability of the genre. Karst (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Reboot

I've rebooted the article, which was previously in a state that could not be salvaged.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Symphonic rock. 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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081012221911/http://www.vermontguardian.com/culture/012005/ProgressiveRock.shtml to http://www.vermontguardian.com/culture/012005/ProgressiveRock.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

There is not enough information

This article is extremely brief. I remember this article use to have more information. Campingfreak3599 (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

All of the unsourced claims and references to unreliable sources were removed (WP:VERIFY). This was a task that was proposed way back in 2010 (see above).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Transitive Merging

Apparently, the consensus of this page was to both merge with both Progressive Rock and Cello Rock as two separate decisions. However, this ended up in Cello Rock redirecting to Progressive Rock, which was then reverted as the consensus was that such a redirect made zero sense as while the text body of progressive rock explains the relationship between the symphonic rock label and progressive rock, there was no explanation for cello rock whatsoever. Indeed, the bands that are labeled cello rock typically had no relationship with progressive rock and where more often based in heavy metal. Since that action was reverted I'm adding this talk section.

Ganondox (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Symphonic rock subsumed into Progressive rock

This is not a new thread. Symphonic rock previously had its own page (here) and then it became a redirect to a Symphonic rock section of Progressive rock and now, on that page, that has been morphed and merged into Progressive rock. Evidently, subsequent edits of Progressive rock were done in good faith - probably unaware that it was also a redirect from Symphonic rock.

Definitions of genres and sub genres is, admittedly, a somewhat subjective art but I feel that should be shown as a spectrum of genres rather than subordinate one to another. From my perspective, at least in my library, Symphonic rock are rock albums where the rock artist has collaborated with an orchestra to perform an orchestral interpretation of a classic rock album. In any event, if Symphonic rock is a redirect to Progressive rock, then I feel that Symphonic rock deserves a distinct section - since Symphonic rock and Progressive rock have been merged (or rather Symphonic rock subordinated). Apparently, the same fate came of Cello rock.

My feeling is that there needs to be more of a comprehensive, holistic, treatment of the universe of genres and less of focus on editing discrete genres in relative isolation of each other. Comments?
Enquire (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)