Talk:Symphonic rock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page seems more like a list to me.... --Snaxe920 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
Contents |
[edit] cleanup
[edit] Article
There are many incomplete sentences. (see Attributes Of Symphonic Rock)
[edit] List
If the bands name is not all uppercase do not type it that way.
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
