Talk:Symphonic rock

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Moody Blues

message: 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)
thread_title:  NOT 

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attempted Suggested Clean Up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  put bandlist back and cleaned up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Beatles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fire on high

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Black Mages

message: 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)
thread_title: Beatles, Beach Boys, and other assorted edits

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Updated The Artists Section 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 LagunaTalk 11:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Whomever Keeps Keeps Changing The Suffixes -ized and -izable To -ised and -isable 

message: 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 LagunaTalk 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article structure/example articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Skillet 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Trolls 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Klaatu 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ilaiyaraaja 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PsuedoComplaints 

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

text: Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neo-Prog to Symphonic Prog 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Globus (music)|Globus]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "proposed merge" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Procol Harum 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Alan Parsons Project]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? 

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

text: * 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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  Galjila and Tako 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need writeups in the '1990s Resurgence section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed entry for MCT 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Symphonic rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jon Lord 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I have added sources.--Drummer (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Cello rock]] 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is extremely brief. I remember this article use to have more information.  Campingfreak3599 (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  There is not enough information 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problems with Transitive Merging 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Symphonic rock subsumed into Progressive rock