Talk:Symphonic metal

Bad paragraph

The following paragraph in the article needed to be fixed as it claimed both a general historic trend about the genre and then declared that somehow the use of that element by a later band was revolutionary:

(emphasis added) "Centering their music around the abilities of their female singer, Sharon den Adel, and the symphonic nature of their use of keyboards, the band reduced the use of male vocals to sparse backing vocals. Nightwish followed a similar trend, following a style similar to power metal and using a female vocalist with heavy use of classically influenced keyboarding. Considered by many to be a power metal band, they contributed heavily to the genre, introducing variety into the genre with their keyboards and female vocals."

If the use of female vocals and keyboards was standard in the genre then they can not be said to have "introduced variety" by using them. If there is a missing description about the type of keyboarding or female vocals that makes their use of them innovative then that should be added. As it is, this appears to be just bad prose and so I'm going to drop that whole sentence and move "considered by many to be a power metal band" into parenthesis after the name of the band. The phrase "contributed heavily to the genre" is also redundant, if they didn't they wouldn't be mentioned so prominently and so soon in the article. --Wowaconia 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

Well, I gave this page a complete overhaul to better fit how the term is used in my experience... SpectrumDT 20:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Cradle of Filth is not black anything

Discuss. Current guitarist Paul Allender said "We were never a black metal band. The only thing that catered to that was the make-up. Even when The Principle of Evil Made Flesh came out — you look at Emperor and Burzum and all that stuff — we didn't sound anything like that. The way that I see it is that we were, and still are now, an extreme metal band."

It is linked to the debated section on the Cradle of Filth article. Do not removed needlessly.

Symphony X is not Power Metal...

People, I´ve moved Symphony X to the "Other" section because it is not power metal. Although sometimes they sound like a power metal band, it´s not their sound characteristic. I think moving it to the other section (literally speaking) will help not to induce people in error by thinkin Symphony X to be a power metal band. In contrast, Angra IS a power metal band with progressive tendencies. In their case I really think they should belong to power metal section. Any comments? Loudenvier 12:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Metallica symphonic

I do not agree to list Metallica here. It´s not a symphonic band. Just because they happened to record with an orchestra it doens´t indulge them with symphonic status. I´f that´s the case, then Guns´n´roses should be listed here too, because some of their songs have orchestras behind. I don´t think they should be listed, so I don´t think Metallica should be listed here... I think that another section entitled for example "Bands playing with orchestras" or something could be created to gather these non-symphonic metal groups under. Did you all agree? Loudenvier 12:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Metallica was never symphonic in the beginning. They're heavy metal.

See, someone must be mixing "symphonic" and "progressive" here. Metallica had a progressive phase with albums such as ...And Justice for All. Another example is Ayreon, he works with very large orchestras but is still considered progressive, not symphonic. Pagen HD (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bands that are symphonic on occasion

Sounds good on both points, Loudenvier. I went ahead and created a new subsection, including Metallica, Rage and Xandria. Does anyone have a better idea on how to call this subsection? Unrelated to this, I slightly tweaked your note on Therion starting out as a death metal band. As you wrote it, it kind of repeated the previous sentence. Also, I put Apocalyptica under 'Other' and removed Listmania. I've never heard of them and can't find anything on them, so I'm not convinced they are a metal band at all. rWd 15:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow! (not to be confused with Windows Over Windows technology), the Therion thing sounds much better with your phrasing. By the way your edits made the article look better. Loudenvier 17:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments :) rWd 07:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved Xandria to the list of proper symphonic metal bands. While they may have some gothic metal traces, they're definitely not just occasionally symphonic. They sound just like Nightwish, Edenbridge, Leaves' Eyes, Midnattsol, Within Temptation, etc.. -- Kimiko 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu's Revamp: Lacking in Sources

User:Leyasu made a recent change to this page with information that has been unverified/uncited. For instance, there is no evidence that the genre was derived from gothic metal. (As you will notice from the discussion, this user seems to have a similar problem citing sources.) I have placed a tag until this information can be backed up, rather than a revert war he/she started in the gothic metal article. Danteferno 08:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A) Idonthaveaname pointed out user Dante started the flame war, and continued it, after multiple times of me suggesting he stops. B) Dante has emmited his own sources from use, using sites he claims are reliable to attempt to discredit me in Gothic Metal, yet says what they say on Symphonic Metal is wrong? C) I dont know all the history on the symphonics used in other genres, true, but i know a lot about the Genre called Symphonic Metal, so if others know more about the history of symphonics in other genres, please, fill that genres part in. D) Also notice, that the temp page that was created for Gothic Metal isnt the one that is tagged with an Attention note? Its the one Dante is trying to argue is right due to things he wrote needing to be removed? Leyasu 19:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don´t think that symphonic metal was derived at all from Gothic Metal. When symphonic metal cames to my mind, I don´t know why, there comes a band along with it named Therion :-). Therion was a Death Metal band. Allright, many bands that are called symphonic metal bands (because symphonic elements are so prominently used in their songs) are from the Gothic Metal subgenre. It doesn´t make valid any claim that Symphonic Metal was derived from Gothic Metal in my humble opinion. Loudenvier 20:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The origins are two fold. One is due to bands such as Therion, as you said, which the history of the genre segment SHOULD say it came from (Therion was at one point a part of the Gothic Metal genre). The bands in the Symphonic Metal genre ARE NOT part of the Gothic Metal genre, and it is actually the point of how easily younger fans and people with little expertise or experience of metal music or community, label metal with atmospheric, orchestral, moody or otherwise non anarchistic/rebelious keyboarding as Gothic Metal that causes the confusion. As link will say in its FAQ under, 'What is the difference between Doom-Metal and Gothic?'.

""Alongside the aforementioned confusion between Gothic and Doom-Metal there also exists some confusion as to what Doom-metal and Gothic-metal actually are, a problem not helped by the ease with which all atmospherically-influenced metal is so readily labelled as Gothic-metal. Gothic-metal depicts a more mellow, melodic and romantic side of metal, often incorporating female vocals alongside male ones, in the vein of "beauty and the beast" metal. In general these acts have nothing to do with either Doom-metal or the Gothic genre, with the exception perhaps of a distant romantic and mellancholic feel. Musically they share nothing more with Doom-metal than, for example Thrash-metal does.""

The genre of Symphonic Metal is also called Orchestral Metal by some people. And as such both genre names mean the same thing. The genre originates in Gothic Metal with help from power metal to define itself. The Symphonic Subgenres are openly devolped completely seperatly, as is mentioned in the revision. Thus anyone with more knwoledge on the delopment of the use of symphonic elements in other genres could highly contribute to the Symphonic Subgenres part of the article. Leyasu 21:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A Subgenre of Metal?

Allow me to question the very existence of symphonic metal as a subgenre of metal and hence, the legitimacy of this article. Ten bands alone do not make a subgenre, especially when most of the ten bands cited are already strongly associated with another subgenre known as gothic metal.

More importantly, I feel that subgenres of metal should be distinguished from characteristics or styles that can be found amongst various subgenres of metal. The latter would include such other descriptions as atmospheric, technical, raw and yes, symphonic. There is no subgenre of metal known as atmospheric metal. But there are metal bands that are atmospheric and so we describe them as atmospheric doom metal or atmospheric gothic metal. There is also no subgenre of metal known as raw metal but there are many black metal bands that fit that description and so the term raw black metal is used. Likewise, there is no subgenre of metal known as symphonic metal. Rather, there are various bands, particularly from the black, power and gothic metal subgenres, that perform a style that can be described as symphonic.

It seems to me that someone somewhere is trying to create a subgenre of metal when it does not really exist. How else to explain the inconsistent privilege given to the symphonic bands from gothic metal over the symphonic bands from black and power metal? The offered reason cited in the article is that the black and power metal bands only use symphonic elements as backing theme. This is quite simply false. I daresay that anyone who has heard Summoning would attest that there are more symphony in the Austrian duo than such bands as Rain Fell Within, Nightwish or Within Temptation. So why are these symphonic gothic metal bands considered a wholly independent subgenre of metal rather than a subset of an existing subgenre like the symphonic black and symphonic power metal bands are?

I suggest that this article be deleted entirely or better yet, modified into a description of a stylistic trait amongst various subgenres of metal. This would involve a description of the use of symphonic elements in heavy metal, dating from Sabbath and Purple through Celtic Frost and onto the contemporary scene, encompassing not just the power, black and gothic subgenres but also the use of symphonic elements in other subgenres like progressive and doom metal. In which case, similar articles should be created to describe other common stylistic traits amongst the metal genre, such as the display of technical virtuosity ("shred-metal") or the usage of "raw" production.

Thoughts? --Anarchodin 09:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Associated doesnt mean they are. They are commonly mistaken for Gothic Metal, due to their similarites. They however are not Gothic Metal. I also, however, do not have a list the length of my arm of every Symphonic Metal band on the planet. They are 10 common ones. People will add more bands, as they know them.

Symphonic Metal has a genre is small, indeed. However, the article itself describes the fact that many bands use symphonics, in other genres. Gothic Metal is in itself Atmospheric, to point that out. And Symphonic Metal removed many of the traits of Gothic Metal. On closer inspection, perhaps this should be in the fusion genres section of the template?

Small problem, when the world wide metal community recognises Symphonic Metal as a genre, it generally is a genre. Also, again, these bands are not Gothic Metal. They lack major aspects of Gothic Metal, such as the dual vocals and distinct atmospherics. They also lack the distinct use of lyrical themes and agression. Also, if the article is read, it is pointed out, that the genre itself takes a great influence from Power Metal. Also it has already been discussed that the Symphonic Subgenres section could be updated to be more detailed in itself, regarding each individual genre, as such, if you have better information, it would be wise to contribute. Again, claiming bands are Gothic Metal, when they have little to nothing to do with Gothic Metal is foolish, and wrong.

Shred Metal? Thats great, you critiscise an article for not agreeing with you, and then try to coin a term like 'Shred Metal?' Yes, the article could be improved. And as already mentioned thrice times, if you can work in the Subgenres part, update and detail in the Power/Black/Doom and Heavy sections, which yes, could be included, then yes, go for it. If you can contribute, do so. However this article was edited, because previously it was wrong. And because, world wide this is a genre of music. Sometimes mistaken for Power Metal? Yes. Sometimes mistaken for Gothic Metal? Yes. All bands are Gothic Metal because you dislike them, or they dont suit your pet names? No. Leyasu 10:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm part of the "world wide metal community" too and I certainly do not recognise Symphonic Metal as a genre. Neither does anyone I know of. I question your authority and credibilty in deciding what is gothic metal, when bands such as Nightwish, Within Temptation and Rain Fell Within have been so strongly associated with the subgenre. Dual vocals are necessary in gothic metal? Since when? I think it is plainly obvious that Rain Fell Within has more similarities with early Theatre of Tragedy than Apocalyptica. I'm not going to be convinced that these bands are not gothic metal merely because you say so.

On the one hand, you wish to use the "world wide metal community" as a ground that symphonic metal exist. On the other hand, you wish to ignore the "world wide metal community" when such bands as Nightwish, Within Temptation and Rain Fell Within are "commonly mistaken" as Gothic Metal. It smacks of hypocrisy. For the record, I am a fan of these bands and your assumption that my objection is derived from a dislike of their music speaks much of your objective in positing a subgenre when there is none.

And there is a reason why I put the term "shred-metal" in quotation marks. It has as much validity as a subgenre of metal as symphonic metal - none.

For anyone else reading this, please remember, I'm not saying that the bands listed in the article are not symphonic. I'm objecting to the idea that the symphonic gothic metal bands are being categorized as a wholly independent subgenre of metal instead of a style or subset of subgenres in the way that symphonic power metal and symphonic black metal bands are being described in the very same article. --Anarchodin 14:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your problem seems to be that when you say 'worldwide metal community' your mistaking it for your circle of friends. Ive added onto the article, several archival sites used by that worlwide community. Guess what? most all of them agree with what is said. The funny thing is, Symphonic Metal is the common name for bands that also bear the name in some places as Opera Metal and Orchestral Metal. Even the Metal Archives site, which i have no love for, lists it as a genre. Problem is, they are not Gothic Metal. The Worldwide Gothic Metal community doesnt accept them as being Gothic Metal. The Gothic Doom community doesnt accept them. And the only people that ive ever known to say that these bands are Gothic Metal is fans of the bands who want them to be something they arent, or people with no real affiliation with Gothic Metal. Nightwish is reported mostly as a Power Metal band, the only reason i listed them under Symphonic Metal is because of the extreme controversy with them. Again, if they were Gothic Metal, they would be mentioned as so. The thing is, they arent. Leyasu 15:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a rather pointless discussion. Both of you are right to some extent. I think the term symphonic metal to be rather established by now. When I went to HEAVY METAL sites, I see a lot of bands characterized as Symphonic Metal bands. But I also do not regard it as a stand-alone metal subgenre (I use the term Metal and Heavy Metal interchangeably). THIS article is important, because Symphonic Metal is a term used to "label" metal music, so it must be documented. There is also a few bands that are so prominently symphonic that they could be regarded Symphonic Metal bands (although it could be argued that they aren´t metal anymore... :-). I do not agree with the deletion of this article, and I do not agree with it stating that Symphonic Metal is a wide accepted and established subgenre of metal. I really like the idea of tracing back the symphonic elements that were introduced by the likes of Sabath... But I really lack the knowledge to contribute in this area. I think that if both "contenders" worked together, this article could be made much better. Loudenvier 12:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My circle of friends? Apparently not. I took a look at the history of the article and note that earlier versionsof the page clearly stated that Symphonic Metal is not a subgenre of metal and that symphonic metal bands can be found in any metal subgenre. That earlier version of the article went through numerous edits by different people and none of them altered the statement that symphonic metal is not a subgenre of metal. It seems to me that there is only one person here that is bent on pursuing the idea that symphonic metal is an independent subgenre of metal. No prizes for figuring out who that person is.

Loudenvier, I am fully aware that symphonic metal is a common term used in metal circles - but like you, I do not think that it is a stand-alone metal subgenre. That is really the only point that I was trying to make. It smacks of blatant prejudice to privilege one group of symphonic metal bands as an independent subgenre of metal while other symphonic metal bands in a different veins remain relegated to their respective subgenres of metal.--Anarchodin 14:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Prejudice? And explain how that is so. The reason for bands being listed as symphonic variations of their genre, is because that is what they are. They do not use symphonic themes as major, defining elements of their music, they use them as backing themes. Symphonic metal bands, of the genre, emphasise the use of symphonic themes. Many people edited the article, yes. Many people claimed one thing as right, yes. But i shall now reference you to something, that serves better to explain my point than me.

• One-thousand people that have never seen a dog, say that all dogs have only 1 one eye, and three legs.
• Ten people who are vetenarians, who handle dogs everday, say that dogs have two eyes, and four legs.

• Which one is right? The overwhelming majority? Or the people who work with the dogs?

A comment> Well since we use a language with words with a definition, then if people agree on dogs being 3-legged and 1-eyed, then that is how they look. What the vetenarians work with has to find another name... You can't insist on some words just because you are a stubborn expert...

I need not explain the principle of each answer. Needless to say, one is right and the other wrong. You have made your case, but have given no reason as to how what is their is wrong. You have given no proof to how what is their is wrong. You have openly stated you dislike certain bands not being grouped together.

Dislikes do not define facts. Symphonic metal, is a young genre, and is slowly growing. It has a large following around the world, but obviously is considered small compared to genres that are more well established due to their age. A child is not as large as an adult, due to the adults age having granted them longer to grow.

Also if it is checked. Another user has made posts on the Gothic Metal article, and on this one, revolving around Nightwish and Edenbridge, with strong discussion as to wether they belong in the Power Metal part of the article or not.

I end this bath of commentary, on the note that if you want to make the article better, then to edit, improve, and add to the subgenres part of the article. I, personally, am not the most well informed person on Symphonic Black Metals orgins, useage, or nature. And i only have certain criteria i can input to Symphonic Power Metal, as well. If you know a lot about these variations, i emplore you, for encyclopedic purposes, add to them. Make this article more definative, more informative, and yet more comphrensive, so it may be considered brilliant prose. Leyasu 15:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Edenbridge and Nightwish are not just Symphonic Metal

They are also Power Metal So listing them under both is the best thing to do. User:Turemetalfan 7:59, 12 December 2005

Not necessarily. As symphonic metal as a genre takes a good portion of its influence from Power Metal. The genre line between them is pretty blurred, and as such, they warrent mentioning in the first list, due to their overwhemling charecteristics of the symphonic metla genre compared to the minor ones of the power metal genre. Leyasu 01:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Edenbridges first three albums are Pure Power metal though. The 4th CD is not even close to being Symphonic do to the fact that is driven more by the guiters and drums in Shine. They just can't go under Symphoinc metal. They have many of the sound that other Power Metal bands have. One such band that comes to mind is Magica. Nightwish is also both becasue they did not really start going to the Symphoinc side of things until CC and Once. AAF, OB, and WM are very much Symphoinc Power Metal. But if you are going to list them as such. Then Visions of Atlantis, and Lunatica should be list as such becasue Nightwish and Edenbridge have much more in common with those bands then they do with Epica.

Your point is true for Nightwish, and to give you the reason behind why they were put there. A) Due to strong discussion on the Gothic Metal articles talk page. B) Their history in the Symphonic Metal genres uprising. C) Their article. Since of your point, i have moved them to Power Metal. I have said before they are a power metal band so, i guess i shouldnt really contradict myself. As for Edenbridge, they stay where they are. If you know of more Symphonic Metal bands, of any type, then please list them. Leyasu 03:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Symphonic power metal is power metal with heavy focus on keyboarding, and/or power metal written in the style of classical music.

That's Edenbridge in a nute shell. They have been Power Metal sense day one. The only other thing they would be listed as is Melodic Metal Which is the why there label Massacre Records lists them. Also a major online store Sonic Cathedral lists them as such to. Also another big site http://www.metalcdratings.com/ listed them as such. Turemetalfan 11:13 12 December 2005

There is several band archival sites in the External Links section. I suggest you look at them. Leyasu 05:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have looked at them and other then on site all the rest list Edenbridge as either Melodic Metal, Angelic Bombast metal, or Power Metal. So they fit in with Symphoinc Power Metal becasue that's what they are a Power Metal band with some Symphoinc elements. Turemetalfan 9:29 13 December 2005

List their power metal elements. In turn i will list their symphonic ones. I dont intend to compete with anybody, in case this sounds that way. Instead, showing our different interpretations might set things clearer. If indeed, they do need to be moved, then they shall be. Leyasu 03:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to list them the elements. But when many review sites are listing them as Power Metal then they should be list as Symphoinc Power Metal becasue that's what they really are. Many of there song's have do to with fantasy and are very up lifting and there are many different power metal bands that do that. Only Shine would be close to Symphoinc. But there other three CD's are Power Metal in very sesne of the word. Turemetalfan

The sites list the band this way.

• Angelic Bombast Metal: One Site
• Gothic Metal: One Site
• Power Metal: One Site
• Symphonic Metal: One Site

Many symphonic bands use fantasy lyrics, its a trait gained from both Power Metal and Gothic Metal. One trait doesnt define a bands genre. This is why i said list all the Power Metal elements of the band. This way we have discussion, not argument. Leyasu 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Should not be merged

Symphonic Metal has to do with instruments, such as orchestras, or synthesized orchestras, regularly, as opposed to a few times or one time like Metallica. Opera Metal or Operatic Metal uses opera vocals. The two do not always happen together, as I can name Goth Metal bands that use opera regularly, hell, even cradle of filth uses opera. Tristania uses opera too. Neither of these bands are symphonic.

Symphonic Metal is about symphony, and opera comes with Symphony. It basically just repeats what is said on this page, and as so should be merged. Leyasu 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Addition Of Lyrical Statement

• (although not all the music focuses on fantasy or classical topics, some of the bands have a clear message of reflecting and analizing human behavior in these times, such as epica or after forever).

This needs rewording better to idealy fit into the lyrics part of the genre. I do think this addition is good however. I post this notice to let the person who made the comment, have first reign at rewording it. Leyasu 23:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Apocalyptica are not Symphonic Metal

It is true that they play cellos (classical instrument) but they don't have symphonic arrangements, and don't have keyboards. The only other classical instruments they use very occasionally are violin, double bass and piano, it still doesn't make them symphonic! The genre of their music is clearly Cello Rock.

They have elements of the symphony and they do metal songs. explain to me again why this would not be sympyhonic metal? IS it because there are no guitars? No Drums? The songs they have done are metal enough considering they have done a lot of Metallica songs. Not to mention Pantera, Slayer, and Sepultura to name a few. Now I am not saying that any symphony that decides to take on a metal cover album should be included in the genre. I do, however think that since they have devoted pretty much their career as a whole to doing songs that are metal songs Apocalyptica deserves to be in this genre. Silentnothing02 18:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Symphonic black metal is grossly inaccurate...

Bal-sagoth, Satyricon, Mayhem, symphonic black metal? Please.

1) Bal-sagoth isn't black metal. They're an extreme epic metal band, dubbed "battle metal" because of their themes; no anti-christianity, or musical similarites to black metal of any form. Having brief moments that seem to sound similar to black metal to people who can't distinguish the difference between a metal band playing quickly and screaming, and a black metal band might confuse the two however.

Extreme is a term used often to denote 'From Death/Black Metal', and Epic Metal isnt a genre, its a cross-genre reference.

2) Satyricon isn't symphonic black metal; they occasionally used synth sounds on their first 2 albums to add a bombastic medieval feel to some of their songs, but that's all. Since that, they've been straight-up black metal, with a rock feel on recent material.

Easily fixed by dding (Earlier Works) to their band name on the list.

3 Mayhem, symphonic black metal? Is this a joke...? Mayhem don't even use any synths, let alone use guitar riffs in any way even CLOSE to being "symphonic". Purely old-school black metal until the 2000 album, "A Grand Declaration of War", which was post-black metal, and 2004's "Chimera" was a cross between their newer sound and the older works of the band - no synths, no symphonic elements whatsoever.

Copied from the merged article. If its wrong, it will be removed, simple enough.

Why aren't bands like Emperor ("In the Nightside Eclipse"), Obtained Enslavement (their 2nd and 3rd albums use dissonant guitar riffs with keys and synths as counter-melodies to create something of a symphonic feel), etc. mentioned, and things like MAYHEM are?

Because you didnt put them on the list when you could of done? Ill correct the mention of problems here. If you know more bands that belong to the list, then add them, please. Leyasu 03:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

New view of symphonic metal...

I think that we might be looking at some vague definitions on the "symphonic" part. Why is it, that the gothic gets to claim the history. I like Sonata Arctica a lot, but I insist not to call them "symphonic"! Why? because the music has nothing to do with symphonic music. Likewise with Nightwish and so on... Edenbridge, is that metal at all?

• Symphonic Music exists in sound, composition (which includes intsrument usage) and the use of other traits akin to that of a symphony. Edenbridge, Sonata Artica and especially Nightwish use traits of these in their music. Nightwish and Sonata Arctica however being Symphonic Power Metal bands, which are mentioned in the article in their own section.

Reply> The question is maybe: Why is Nightwish (and so on) Symphonic Metal, while Rhapsody has been labeled Symphonic Power Metal. Yes, I know they play power-metal, but I should say it is more Symphonic than power. Furthermore I think it is inconsistent to label some as symphonic "something" metal and a few as "real" symphonic metal, especially if they have strong roots on say gothic metal. Then it should rightfully be Symphonic Gothic metal...

Anyway, if you look at bands like Rhapsody and Luca Turilli you have real symphonic music! First of all they use authentic instruments (mostly strings), but they use them seperatly. The instruments have their own part, as they would in a real symphonic orchestra. Furthermore, the music is written before played, that is, the song writer have the complete idea before playing the music. That is the same way a symphonic orchestra works. And historically they recorded their first album, Legendary Tales, in 96-97 using all these classical ideas. I don't know the story of bands like Nightwish, but it seems to me, that we have a popular definition, that a lot of bands like to be within, so they use the name, more than is deserved.

• Many bands right their music before playing. Rhapsody also do not solely use real instruments, and most of the time use keyboards, much alike any band that synthesizes string and wind instruments on the keyboard. Symphonic Metal as a genre is also known as Orchestral/Opera metal, which repeats a lot of what you have said. Rhapsody is also a Symphonic Power Metal band, which can again be read on in its place in the article.

Reply> same as my reply before...

I think that the term should be used only for those few bands, wich actually do use symphonic ideas, and then let the rest stay in their own genres... Sonata Arctica is great european power metal, nightwish is clear and soft powermetal (maybe gothic metal (don't understand that term precisely)), and let Edenbridge be call pop-rock or whatever it is (have only heard 1 cd, but she doesn't sing well, and not at all in a classical way.

• Sonata Artica, Nightwish and Edenbridge all do use Symphonic ideas. Sonata Artica often uses writing akin to a symphony in a similar way to Nightwish. Edenbridge take influence from Classical Music, which is common with Symphonic Metal and Gothic Metal bands. Wikipedia is also an Encylopedia, not a place to voice your personal opinions on bands.

I don't have the feeling that a band like Sonata Arctica writes anything before playing, but then they offcourse meet my definition of symphonic. Do they all do this?

Speaking of singing... Maybe bands like Aina (well not a band but rather a musical) and Avantasia deserves the sub-genre Opera-metal or at least Symphonic metal. Since they work in the write first, then play manner, and use a lot of classical sounds as well.

• As already mentioned, Symphonic Metal as a genre is also commonly known as Opera Metal and Orchestral Metal. I suggest reading the article again, as in kind, your comments seem like you havent read the article at all. Ley Shade 23:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply> I can't see their names in the lists, but think that they might be there more than some else. I have read the article, but I'm not used to this kind of debate about the text, so please excuse me, an I promise to try and learn this way of conversation. But by the way... Isn't this genre (og subgenre) also a part og what is called Progressive Metal?

In response to your comments, please remember to sign your comments with (Ley Shade 12:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)) four tidles at the end, like those in the brackets. If you think the list of bands is missing a band, then please add that band with reason, into the appropriate list. Some Progressive Metal bands do use keyboards, but a lot dont. This is also mentioned in the article. Symphonic Metal as a genre, is pretty distinct from Progressive Metal, getting its foundations from Gothic Metal and Power Metal, and also Classical and Opera music. Ley Shade 12:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I added responses to each paragraph in a bullet point underneath. Ley Shade 23:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oriental metal merge?

Come on. Why don't you merge NSBM in here, while you're at it. -- parasti ^(talk) 17:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading the Oriental Metal article, i dont recall myself posting a merger for it. On this note however, i do mean to open the following discussion. Ley Shade 18:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone probably confused, Oriental Metal has nothing to do with Symphonic Metal

Opera Metal Merge

Opera Metal basically repeats this article in a brief and vague manner. If there isnt any opposition to it, ill merge it next monday and leave a redirect to here. Ley Shade 18:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Symphonic death metal

If you think Melodic death metal is different from Symphonic death metal then the thing to do would be to edit the link, and the melodic death metal article. Either way, they need to be linked to from here. Sam Spade 17:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

One redirects to the other. Symphonic Death is not the same as Melodic Death, and the reason that ive unlinked it is to reineterate that point. Ley Shade 18:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats wrong on both accounts, as I said above. #1 if you think they arn't the same, go edit their article to clarify that. #2 no matter what, both should be linked to from this article. Sam Spade 21:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we shouldnt be linking anything to anything when those links are wrong. I will unlink it again, because, your trying to link two unrelated things. Its exssentially the same as me doing this, this or even this. Ley Shade 22:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what your talking about. Your starting to worry me. Sam Spade 13:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Like i said, what your doing is the same as me doing this, this or even this. Quit while your ahead, the page is already on the WP:HMM] noticeboard, so stop trying to disrupt it. Ley Shade 14:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your not making any sense. Symphonic death metal / melodic death metal is clearly relevant here. If you have some explanation of why not, I'll listen, but this pineapple spatula foolishness is unhelpful. Sam Spade 15:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Symphonic Death Metal and Melodic Death Metal are not the same thing. The clean up that me and Mister Spear Person are doing, redirects all the Symphonic variations to this page. Thus, redirecting Symph Death to Melo Death, when the two arent even the same thing, is going completely backwards on the work of This Metal Project. Ley Shade 16:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

#1 there is nothing special about wiki-projects. They are not authoritative. #2 Melodic or symphonic, it is relevant here. #3 I don' know User:Spearhead, or what your trying to do, what does that have to do with links needed here? Sam Spade 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Do Not Merge

Im pretty sure this genre has absolutely nothing to do with the oriental metal genre...

How come Therion were gothic metal?

The article currently states the following:

The first origins of Symphonic metal as a genre begins with early bands in the Gothic metal genre, which heavily made use of orchestral elements in their music. Of such bands, Therion was the first to feature a fully live orchestra and write their music with the symphonic elements of classical music as an essential inclusion into their musical style.

I do not think that Therion may be described as an “early band in the Gothic metal genre”. Prior to Theli (which is already symphonic metal proper) they have not put out any releases which are identifiable gothic metal. The only album that might have some similarity to gothic metal is Lepaca Kliffoth, but it is usually referred to as either “highly experimental death metal” or “early symphonic metal”, or something like that. I.e. it is not gothic metal as well. The Therion article also mentions only two genres, death metal and symphonic metal. So, I think that the section on the origins of symphonic metal should be changed somehow. --qvvx 12:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Highly Experimental Death Metal = Gothic Metal. If you look over the Gothic Metal article, you should come to understand that the term wasnt quite yet applied at the times of the earliest bands exhibiting the sound the genre would become known for. This is why many of the Proto-Gothic Metal albums were listed as Doom-Death, Death Metal, or Black Metal.

Opera-Oriental Metal Genre Merge

Each Genre is completely distinct in their sound and origins and show few similarities musiclly. The Topics should rightfully remain unmerged, I strongly oppose it.

NO: Only skim read Oriental & it seems like an entierly diffrent style and origin so unless you want a metal sub genre article this dosen't make senseNate1481 01:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My View

I believe that Symphonic Metal has had many influences, including most of what has been mentioned above, I believe it hasn't just stemmed from on genre but infact stemmed from many. I believe Symphonic Metal has been created with the help of Death-Metal (I.e, Therion), Power Metal (bands like Blind Guardian) Gothic (Nightwish) and Classical/Neo-Classical Metal (bands Like DragonForce). However, some people may think this is not the case as at stages these band (and there subgenres) sound nothing like this subgenre, which is why I believe there have been quite a few influences.rammedstein 12:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

First off most of what you have said is wrong. As for a start Nightwish has NEVER played Gothic Metal, Therion was Gothic Metal and then Symphonic Metal, and Dragonforce is Power Metal. Please try actually reading articles and knowing what your on about before trying to tell everyone they are wrong. 86.132.134.36 12:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said anyone was wrong, maybe you should take your own advice and read them.rammedstein 12:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The articles all explicitly say that Nightwish isnt Gothic Metal, Dragonforce isnt Neo-classical metal, and that Therion played Gothic Metal then Symphonic Metal. I dont need to re-read anything, i actually know what the bands are, because i take my time to actually learn things before assuming to know, as yew seem to do. 86.132.134.36 12:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please point me to:

1. an article that states that Therion has ever played gothic metal (with the exception of the article Symphonic metal);
2. an album where Therion exhibits gothic metal sound. --qvvx 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, although this isn't the most accurate source, but atleast 2 different people from Rockbox Have classified Nightwish as Gothic, and also I learn about my music by listening to it, now although this does not actually tell me what genre it is, it gives me an idea of its "Sound" or what style/type of music it sounds like, and in my first post i have stated these are my oppinions by saying "I believe" so they are just my input not interference, also the person that said "knowing what your on about before trying to tell everyone they are wrong." kind-of contradicts my agreement wiht the here "including most of what has been mentioned above". Also, in pointing you to an artlicle would be pointless as this encyclopedia is open-source and can easily be biased by one persons oppinion. My final question is, have any of you heard Luca Turilli's new band Dreamquest? and what do you tink of them, they are pretty good in my oppinion.rammedstein 12:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest reading the Gothic Metal article. Nightwish lack core features of Gothic Metal, such as the guitaring and lyric styicles, the use of two vocalists, the themes of the lyrics, and overally only have connection to Gothic Metal by using a keyboard.

Now i apologise if ive come off hostile, i try not to do that nor snap at people. But please read Therion, Gothic Metal, and Symphonic Metal. 86.132.129.13 13:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You see, the problem with Therion is that the corresponding article never mentions gothic metal at all. Only death, and then sympho. There simply are no references to gothic metal whatsoever in the text of the article. The same is true for the articles concerning Therion’s albums: the first three are listed as death metal, and Lepaca Kliffoth is already referred to as symphonic metal. And that is why I am asking: I cannot find any article in Wikipedia that confirms your view. It would be nice if you could point me to one. --qvvx 14:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, the article Gothic metal: but what’s that {{verify}} tag on top of it?.. It would be best if you cited some sources that place Therion into the gothic metal scene. In Encyclopaedia Metallum, for example, they are listed as “Death Metal (early); Symphonic/Operatic Metal”. --qvvx 14:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my bad, don't worry about it, im having trouble finding anythiing that refers to Therion as gothic metal ( i guess your right), and apart from backing up my arguement very badly (citing wrong bands) would you agree that this is what it may have evolved from/grown from?rammedstein

Hye, i just was looking over this(Neo-Classical Metal) and i saw the name DragonForce popup, so i dont think im quite going insane... rammedstein 06:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh... Opera metal and symphonic metal are two different things.

Uh... Opera metal and symphonic metal are two different things. Sure they interlap a lot, but orchestras and singing are two different things... I don't get why opera metal redirects to symphonic metal. Therion isn't symphonic metal. They're opera all the way.

• Reply: I'm unable to tell operatic metal from symphonic, simply because they interlap too much. I suggest that operatic metal be a sub-genre of symphonic.

Pagen HD (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Moonsorrow

Moonsorrow is not a symphonic black metal band, they play Viking/Folk Metal --viriatus 11:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Waltari?

Hatakka was working with conductor Riku Niemi on a project combining heavy metal with classical music. This project eventually became known as Yeah! Yeah! Die! Die! Death Metal Symphony in Deep C. The show was performed in 1995, and the album was released in 1996.

In 1999 Hatakka was working on yet another metal/classical collaboration, and this gave rise to the stage show Evangelicum. This production differed from Yeah! Yeah! Die! Die! in that it contained more than just music: the stage show contained music, ballet and a light show.

(source)

Orchestral Metal?

It may be a dumb question, but why is this term suddenly used in the middle part of the article, while the title and intro and most of the end of the article talk about Symphonic Metal? The genre is called Symphonic Metal on all the related (both genres and bands) pages too I think. It looks like someone for whatever reason didn't like the term 'symphonic' and substituted their own term 'orchestral'. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. -- Kimiko 02:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be me. I wrote the original article, and then helped with the merger of all its Mini-Me esque clones into it (Opera Metal, Orchestral Metal, Symphony Metal, Metal Opera, etc etc). At the time i updated, the term was being applied to the Symphonic Metal bands as a genre, as to not confuse the multiple uses the term Symphonic Metal. Someone erased it though during a page update, and it was probally all for the better. If there is still stray remarks about it around, feel free to just change them to Symphonic Metal.

A mess

Everything from "other subgernes" and downwards is a total mess, and should be removed or heavily edited. "Symphonic thrash"? Doom metal is symphonic metal? Children of Bodom? NONE of this is needed, or correct. --Ryouga 07:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Please edit them out one by one, and be patient. Not ALL of them are incorrect. Pagen HD (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by User 81.153.143.33

This anonymous user has attempted to remove bands from the list without discussion or stating a reason. I am prepared to debate this issue and I am open to all reasonable argument, but he cannot just remove the contributions of others simply because he does not agree. Some bands can span several genres but still have a case to be included. I did not particularly agree that Tiamat was Symphonic Metal but I could understand the reasoning and left it alone. If I had felt strongly enough to remove it, I would have at least given a reason. I expect the same courtesy.

Headshaker 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sum it up. Bands are Gothic Metal. Countless users have had to remove them before for that reason. They were removed by somebody else right before you added them again. Thus, editors get tired of explaining their removal other and other again and sometimes do not put edit snyps in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.143.33 (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

This argument is flawed. Looking at the history of this article, the alterations do not add up to "countless users". Furthermore you cannot simply declare a band is a different genre without there being a debate and a consensus, which has not yet occurred on this the proper forum. Here is my proposal: If several real users, not sock puppets agree with you on this forum that these bands should not be included I will go with the consensus and no longer revert deletions. I will open with the case for their defence below as a fresh thread. Can all users with an opinion sign their user name by ending with 4 tildes (wavy lines)

Headshaker 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputing exclusion of Leaves Eyes, Sirenia, Lunatica, Stream of Passion, Tristania

Let me begin my some self-justification. I find the use of the phrase "far more experienced editors" somewhat presumptive. I am an authority on Heavy Metal in general and have been following bands since 1980. I am an authority on the NWOBHM (though less so on SM) and have contributed several articles and have listened to literally thousands of hours of music, and I own over 2000 albums. I therefore count my own views of at least as much worth as the "far more experienced editors" the above user seems to think I am not. The above user himself also seems to lack the experience to sign his name properly, so maybe he could himself have more to learn.

Let us now turn to the above bands. The above user (it would be nice if he gave himself a proper handle but for now I'll call him TAU) is quite correct in stating that they can, with the possible exception of Leaves Eyes be identified as gothic metal. This is not surprising, as SM clearly is an interweaving of three influences, namely goth, death metal and classical music. It is of no surprise therefore that bands can exist in more than one genre at once. The question of the fact that they are gothic metal is therefore irrelevant. What is at issue is whether they can also qualify as SM. To do so I would suggest that these criteria would be met: 1. The use of the middle-fifth chord structure in the guitar sound that characterises heavy metal. 2. The incorporation of gothic and/or fantasy themes. 3. The use of real or synthesised orchestral symphonic arrangements. These may include operatic soprano female vocals.

I make the case that all the above bands include these three components into their musical compositions and therefore qualify as SM. I am therefore reinstating them. I will however desist from doing so if it can be demonstrated that my reasoning is flawed by several of these "far more experienced editors" TAU refers to. I look forward to their arguments. I am always open to reasoned persuasion, and I am willing to accept a negative concensus if there is one.

Headshaker 21:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Im an experienced editor who doesnt sign their name for a reason. Second i dont care what your point of view is, i care what things are and about quality of articles.

Also if yew even read the Gothic Metal article you would know it has NOTHING to do with Gothic Rock.

Oh, and their arguments are all over this discussion page. And, the article lists what Symphonic Metal is - you dont simply get to 'change it' so bands you feel like adding are justifed adittions. Please see WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.143.33 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Lunatica can not be identified as gothic metal because there music is not Gothic. It's in the area of Symphoinc Metal and Power Metal. Which is the reason why they are listed as Symphoinc Power Metal. The Same reason VoA is also listed as such.

The problem with Gothic Metal is that any Metal band that has a lead female singer is dumped into. I can name off the top of my head three bands with a female lead singer that are not Gothic:

To-Mera is Prog Metal Acrh Enemy is Melodic death metal Sinergy is Power Metal

So from this point on I would like to say that unless any one can find good proof to show that a metal band with a lead female singer is Gothic Metal then don't list them as such or call them Gothic metal.

(Unsigned again!)

Let us examine these arguments. If as you claim you "care about the quality of articles" then perhaps you could write the words you and I and Symphonic properly, and generally structure paragraphs in proper English. You are also claiming to care about "what things are". I do not see how your view of "what things are" is in any way superior to mine. Superior arguments are judged by consensus. A consensus of editors agreeing with your view rather than mine would be a powerful argument. Regarding your argument that "you have a reason" for being anonymous is ridiculous. It is perfectly possible to have a proper handle and remain anonymous. It is a matter of etiquette and courtesy.

Let us now turn to definitions themselves for which you seem to have missed the point. You spent a paragraph attempting to define goth rock and gothic metal. This is irrelevant. I am not disputing these issues. Rather it is whether the specific bands identified qualify as Symphonic Metal. I would argue that they do by the article's own definition. Indeed, looking at the individual band articles, others (not me) have also defined them as Symphonic Metal along with other genres. Finally I do not agree that I am in breach of any Wikipedia guideline. It is you who are in breach of guidelines by not signing your ID properly.

In this ongoing debate, please stick to the specific issue of the definitions of Symphonic Metal and whether these bands qualify, using reasoned arguments.

Headshaker 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I do actually have a reason which is of absoloutly non of your concern and doesnt affect the argument what so ever.

Oh, and you are by trying to force your POV over cited sources and previoiusly established consensus on this issue that litters this discussion page.

Oh, i also wrote and styled virtually the whole article. Leaves Eyes, yeah id say Symphonic Metal/Gothic Metal combination. Sirenia, no, thats Gothic Metal - reading that article would really help your understanding of the subject matter. Stream of Passion were already on there. Lunatica were already on there. Tristania is again, Gothic Metal. Hence the dual vocalists, heavy atmospheres, aggression and complexity.

This article isnt a stand alone article. It works with articles like Gothic Metal, Black Metal, and Power Metal to explain what its on about. As such i suggest reading this one, so yew actually understand the difference! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.143.33 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I suspect from what you have stated that you are Leyasu, which explains your need for anonymity. However I am not going to report my suspicions to an administrator because I actually like the article. In fact, the article helped me discover bands I had not heard of before. My only argument is whether certain bands should be included in the list. My belief is that your criteria are too personal to you. With regard to my motives, you misunderstand them. I am not "attention seeking" but I do believe in fighting for a cause. With regard to forcing my POV, I stated earlier that I would bow to a concensus opinion. That said, we are to date the only two who have felt that strongly about the subject. After some thought, I have decided to give up fighting for this cause on the grounds that there is an adequate number of bands on the list for any user to explore the subject further themselves. Instead, I have decided to start my own Yahoo! group on Symphonic Metal which will be more liberal in scope, and added a link from this article. I hope you see this as a suitable compromise.

Headshaker 08:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The link is non-notable and sites already exist for Female Fronted Metal Bands. Also there is nothing personal about the articles content, at the end of the day the comparison between Gothic Metal and Symphonic Metal is quite large.

*Gothic Metal:

*1. Beauty And The Beast Vocals (Male And Female Lead)

*2. Aggressive Guitaring (Rooted in Black/Death/Doom)

*3. Heavy Atmospherics (Due to Keyboarding/Bass styles)

*4. Romantic And Tragedy Themed Storys (Concept Albums)

*Symphonic Metal:

*1. Operatic Lead Vocalist (One Soprano/Mezzo-Soprano)

*2. Simplified Amd Easily Accessable Guitaring

*3. Happier, Brighter Atmospheres (Due to major chord use and epic nature)

*4. Fantisical And Psuedo-Philosphical Lyrics

Quite a comparision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.143.33 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Just becusae there are comparisons between Symphonic Metal and Gothic Metal means nothing. Much of what was listed there is nothing more the hog wash. Ie Heavy Atmospherics (Due to Keyboarding/Bass styles)you can find that in Power Metal bands. There a number of them that use the keyboards big time. Same thing with Prog Metal bands. So does that mean they are Gothic and can't be listed as Prog Metal or Power Metal?

Romantic And Tragedy Themed Storys (Concept Albums)Again well it is used in Gothic metal it is not the only place you will find it. You can find it in Prog Metal, Power Metal, and Metalcore bands.

Beauty And The Beast Vocals (Male And Female Lead) Have you ever heard of The Project Hate? They are a Death Metal band that uses Beauty and the Beast sytle Vocals. Well it is something you will find in Gothic Metal it's not the only kind of metal that uses that style.

Happier, Brighter Atmospheres (Due to major chord use and epic nature) There are Symphoinc metal bands that have that but are not always happy.

The problem here is that people want to define Goth metal as a kind of metal that has just female lead singers. That is wrong to do as so many levels. Ie when readin this someone said

Let us now turn to the above bands. The above user (it would be nice if he gave himself a proper handle but for now I'll call him TAU) is quite correct in stating that they can, with the possible exception of Leaves Eyes be identified as gothic metal>>>>>

So that' means that Lunatica is Gothic Metal? How are they Gothic Metal? In what way are the Gothic Metal. Go by what was said they are waaaaaaay to happy to be Gothic Metal. If any thing need fixing is the Gothic Metal page. Because so many bands are listed wrong there are should not be listed there at all. Soon we will be finding the Trans-Siberian Orchestra as a Goth metal band do to the keyboards [rolls_eyes] Truemetalfan Dec 9, 2006

Try reading the Gothic Metal article. It openly states that Gothic Metal and Goth Metal are different things. Thus half your argument is 'hogwash' and pure neoglism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.80.240 (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

An overview of the debate thus far

Discussing the various subgenres of music is fascinating but clearly passion can get in the way of reasoning. Those heavily involved in them can become locked in disputes over hair-splitting definitions that are meaningless to an outsider. This dispute over what "Symphonic Metal" is has been complicated by a separate issue over the various subgenres of gothic music. These two arguments need to be separated. The subgenres of gothic music is a potentially endless argument and should be discussed elsewhere, as for people such as myself they are of no interest.

With the arguments over different types of gothic music excluded, the argument becomes simpler, namely which bands fit the category of Symphonic metal. I am in agreement with Leyasu on one thing: the bands on the main list are Symphonic Metal. However he/she seems to regard himself/herself as the complete absolute authority on this subject. Getting suspended clearly undermines this user's credibility and ability to make that claim. Ultimately time will decide the true definition of Symphonic Metal, which will be decided by general consensus, and which bands fit the tag. After some thought I have decided that there is nothing to be gained from further debating here as I can pursue my interest elsewhere. I do agree with a previous user that everything below the main band list should be scrapped as it is a mess. What is left would be at least credible as an article. All further input from me on the subject of Symphonic Metal can be found at this site, although I will need six months to make it how I want it.

Headshaker 08:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The bottom half needs to be tidied up to again be as clear and gracious as it was originally. Vandalism and spam have corroded this article and unlike most im the only person who really trys to maintain it.

Second, yew might not 'care' about Gothic Metal. BUT understanding 'what it is' will be a great step forward in your understanding of it. Oh, and i suggest yew read the Musical Genre article, as Musical Genres arent defined by 'what people want them to be'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.80.240 (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

A point of clarification: I was confused by your quote 'what people want them to be' which I did not actually use. If you are referring to "make it how I want it" I was referring to my site, not any genre. I would also repeat that the definition of any genre is decided by consensus, although sometimes consensus is never reached. I hope we are now all clear on what we all mean.

Headshaker 19:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And its the consensus by who that i care about, not the consensus part. Otherwise genres would be changed to suit the favourite bands of any group of kids at any current point of 'consesnus' in the in group. Thus why i say read the Gothic Metal and Musical Genre articles, as the Gothic Metal article also has information on Symphonic Metal on it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.161.138 (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Oh, and after glancing at your site, you just proved everythign i said right. Your trying to 'change' the defination of Symphonic Metal because it excludes your favourite bands. A wee bit childish.

You are still confused about the word consensus. By consensus I mean consensus in its widest sense, the views of all fans in general, not any particular group. You are also mistaken in the belief that I myself defined the bands you exclude as Symphonic Metal. The definitions I use and the bands I include were not invented by me. Everything was read from elsewhere, either from this and other articles by other editors or from other sites. That is how I discovered these bands in the first place. None of it came from my own head. I simply agreed with what I read and have propagated it. I am the champion of certain views, but not their inventor.

Headshaker 06:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

DragonForce

Symphonic power metal? I'm not really to sure on this. I 'm taking it off until someone can show proof. They are Power Metal but I would not call them Symphonic power metal. truemetalfan Dec 18, 2006

• neither. -- Librarianofages 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Frost

Celtic Frost play symphonic black metal? This sentence can surprise them very much. They don't play sympho-metal or black metal. HEliar-Rus

The Battle Rages On

I notice with some amusement a fierce debate and revert war continuing in my absence as to who should or shouldn't be on the main list. To avoid these debates in my own Yahoo group I decided to let any band who some journalist called "Symphonic Metal" be included in the group's database. For this article, I would suggest splitting the main list into a "generally accepted" list of bands who EVERYBODY agrees are SM and a list of "disputed status" bands where opinion is divided. Not that I intend to do it myself as I don't wish to spark more nastiness. I still think that's the answer though. Contact me on my talk page to know more about my group. We've only got four and we could do with some more! (Not bad for a group 3 weeks old though)

Headshaker 19:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. I usually use the suggestion of sources on articles in which I see genre dispute, sadly many people do not agree with this. The issue though, to me, isn't as much what's being edited but who is editing, namely Leyasu socks(who you can see is banned from this page above, though that is moot considering Leyasu is banned from wiki alltogehter), whom I revert regardless of what they do. Note that all the reverts I've made were of edits by British Telecom IPs within the ranges used by Leyasu whom only edited Leyasu's common targets and pushed Leyasu's common opinions. --Wildnox(talk) 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Even though 90% of Leyasus's edits arent vandalism and the majority of Admins and Wikipedia users tend to agree with what Leyasu's edits are, you still get the occasional admin who reverts all the edits because they simply dislike Leyasu. Kinda stupid really.

Either way, its better to leave the list and just try to keep people aware not to cross list things. And, if people read the article, it says quite clearly what is, and isnt, Gothic Metal.

Oh and some journalist means 90% of the time they have no idea of the subject matter and are not reliable sources. Somewhat like Encyclopedia Metallium, who, ironically, think that adding a bunch of bands that dont exist to their lists, and labelling bands as what they want them to play, makes them credible.

Leyasu, it has nothing to do with vandalism and everything to do with you being banned. --Wildnox(talk) 16:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This has everything to do with vandalism. Ur using my ban has an excuse to revert to vandalised, unsourced page versions on the whole basis dislike me, which youve said before anyway.

Where did I say this, please supply diffs? --Wildnox(talk) 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So the fact im banned means absoloutly nothing. This is about my ban coz if it was id have every admin on my back, and the only ones i do are the ones who have expressed open dislike for me.

Most of your socks end up banned, the only times I've seen admins see your accounts and not ban them is when they think you've already moved on. Trust me, you have no special support. --Wildnox(talk) 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So ironically, no this isnt about me being banned, and its not about my edits being vandalism. I even saw yew accuse Crono of being a sockpuppet of me, because you dislike me and he supported edits of mine. Thats how pathetic this all is. Next youll be doing what Circues did and accusing all IPS on Wikipedia of being me. Its pathetic and its wrong, and i wouldnt need to undermine the sock rule if i wasnt banned in the first place. Oh, yeah, a ban placed on me by an admin who accused me of edits i was later proved of never making, thus the ban isnt warranted past my extreme undermining of the sock rule, mainly for emphasis on the fact that banning users for non-vandalistic edits and reverting non-vandalistic edits undermines most Wikipedia policys anyways. And the fact non of my edits are vandalism and yew reverting to vandalised pages further proves my point, trying to claim its got something to do with me being banned just makes yew look even more vindictive.

No, this is about you being banned, that's all it's about, otherwise I wouldn't even be editing these articles. --Wildnox(talk) 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. Prohaniti has backed up edits of mine. Ive worked with Headshaker too, even me and Deathrocker now mostly get along. I have plenty of people here who agree and disagree with me, sure. But this isnt about anything to do with me being banned. Ive seen your edits, you revert anything you want, and most of the time its not even vandalism. Its pathetic. Yew wanna revert a bad edit, fair enough. But youll notice 99% of the time any other admin doesnt revert an edit of mine that doesnt break any policy other than the SOCK.

Like i said im the Robin Hood of Wikipedia. And yew guys act the like the Sheriffs. Just coz yew want to believe mister Robin doesnt have any support Sheriff, doesnt mean everyone really does dislike him.

Frankly, I don't care about the quality of your edits. If you weren't banned, I wouldn't care, I most likely wouldn't even notice. --Wildnox(talk) 17:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, so now your endorssing vandalsim? Glad that you just proved my point, you dont care if people vandalise articles. Thats fine, thats remembered. See if yew got rid of the vandalism in the first place, i wouldnt be having to and could get on with helping with the partial rewrite of the Gothic Metal article and the collection of Music Genome Project Characteristics. Oh yeah, nobody reverts me there either? Ironic, isnt it.

Vandalism? You're just doing one of the things that got you banned in the first place, calling edits you disagree with "vandalism" to attempt to draw power to your point. --Wildnox(talk) 17:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Go read WP:VANDAL, your an admin, your supposed to know what it means, and i know it better than you. I actually all the main policys. No, its vandalism to remove cited information to disrupt and cause problems - which a lot of the edits i remove are. Its also vandalism to misrepresent edit summarys to remove sections of articles to compromise the articles intergrity. Both so far, you have done.

So far, i havent done any vandalism, but yew have. The sad thing is though, yew did say yew dont care if people vandalise the articles. And yew also did imply yew dont care about the articles integrity. And your failure to know the Wikipedia Policys really does make me wonder about your abilitys as an Admin.

I said there wasn't any vandalism, not that I don't care about vandalism. By the way, the only edits that are supposed to be labeled "vandalism" are simple vandalism suchs as replacing a page with the word "FUCK". Other than that the rule is to assume good faith. Now, on the point of you thinking your block was unjust, you are allowed to bring it before ArbCom, even after your ban, to review, and if you honestly believe it was unjust that is what you should be doing, using socks to evade ban only makes unbanning more difficult. --Wildnox(talk) 17:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK fuck it, yew know what im gonna do? Im just gonna go now, and send out a batch email to all the users i know on Wikipedia on what articles you just vandalised, and point out to them that ur now listing IPS that you know for a fact arent me (i cant run two at the same time, especially when the other is a different ISP at the other end of hte country). So, im gonna fuick off for a couple of hours, and come back when everyone else is on, and then you cant come up with no bullshit your banned crap when they revert the vandalism again.

Yew wanna play with policy, thats fine. But i can do it just as well. Wanna Wikilawyer? Thats fine, i can do it 10 times better. Do yew know why Circues gave me a ban? Because he abused his admin powers and i called him on it, and the only way he wasnt getting busted was faking a load of edits and blaming them on me. Ironically, it was later proven i didnt make those edits and i was right, again. So there we go. Yew wanna play Wikilawyer, fine.

Oh and no point in me trying to reverse the ban now. Ive evaded it for too long and become a character. But yeah, having my account back would be nice. Oh and no, your wrong again - go and read the WP:VANDAL policy. And i was wrong with BlackSerenitys edits, i didnt see his edits on the discussion pages until after, hence why i messaged him and tried to explain. So yew wanna revert to vandalised page versions to undermine not just me, but several other users, thats fine. Yew endorse vandalism yew cant complain when others dont follow the policys in regards to yew.

And like i said, yew cant revert other registered users simply because they are banned. because, they arent!

And it wouldn't bother me at all if they do that. Why, you might ask, because they aren't ban evading socks. --Wildnox(talk) 17:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good good, ill get right on it.

Also, you'll understand if I'm suspicious is it's Cronodevir who does the reverting, I wont revert him/her, I'll just be a little suspicious. On the otherhand if it's a brand spanking new account with no edits before today(or at least before this started so say 11:30 EST), that I might revert. revert. --Wildnox(talk) 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

...I just wanted to intrude on this debate by praising administrators who freely give their time to police this awesomely huge pool of knowledge that is Wikipedia. Clearly it needs defending from those whose perception of right and wrong is out of step with the majority. Leyasu's use of bad language, obsessive self-righteousness and just plain ungentlemanly rudeness are not the behaviour of a reasonable individual. I would also like to add that the inference that Leyasu was prepared to work with me is untrue. All the attempts at conciliation and compromise came from me. We all have pearls of wisdom to offer, and on the matter of musical genres, which are subjective, definitions need to be arrived at by consensus. Leyasu however was determined to impose one personal view as the absolute truth. I have had brushes with administrators myself, but I have always been open to reason and persuasion. Those who are not are a threat to us all.

Headshaker 09:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

On a wierd point, contray to Leyasu's belief, I'm not an admin. Otherwise I would of just blocked him/her on sight so far everytime. --Wildnox(talk) 16:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Yew provide reliable sources, your POV goes in. Otherwise it doesnt, simple as. To make it blunt as well, you dont just redefine genres on the basis your favourite bands arent in it, doesnt work like that.

• Leyasu creeps back in again? You have forfeited the right to be debated with. SECURITY!!! Headshaker 15:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Symphonic Metal Bands

I propose to change the list in the article to List of Influential Symphonic Metal bands, because it is now way to overcrowded. This would leave a list of:

• Therion
• Within Temptation
• Nightwish
• Edenbridge
• After Forever

Bryan 10:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would beg to differ on this one Bryan. I think every significant band in the genre should be included. If someone was researching the subject, they'd want as much material as possible. Speaking as a fan, this article is my principal source of finding out who all the SM bands are. I would not like to miss out on any. Headshaker 07:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

no, thats not what wikipedia is for. i suggest you take a look at the metal archives. Lygophile has spoken 04:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the list should be trimmed. I'm not going to comment on which specific bands should be in or out, but this article should only list the most important bands in the genre. Redlink bands, should all be gone by default, and I'm going to remove them now. As far as finding the other bands goes, try looking at all the bands in the Symphonic Metal category. --Wildnox(talk) 04:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you are going to do this, a new page should be made with the full list of bands.

symphonic rock?

so it has no relation to symphonic rock whatsoever?. Lygophile has spoken 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing

I just think this sounds stupid, It's like saying Hi I'm John but you can call me Joe, or John.

Symphonic metal as a genre (sometimes called opera metal or plainly symphonic metal)

---

Can someone please tell me the diffrence between symphonic and neo-classical metal?

Symphonic metal is metal that utilizes synthesizers in an attempt to immitate an orchestra, whereas neo-classical metal is metal that incorporates a variety of pre-20th-century high culture music (read: NOT folk music) composition techniques into a metal context. The most common periods of music incorporated into neo-classical music are the Baroque period, the Classical period and the Romantic period. Ours18 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hevein

added Hevein to the Other symphonic subgenres section, they are the only known trash metal band with strong symphonic influences. 82.170.122.147 01:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Derdian

I recently created a page for a relatively new symphonic power metal band from Italy, Derdian. It was up for a day or two but then it disappeared. Why'd it get deleted? Check the band out here: [1] (PowerGamer6 21:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Symphonic doom.

Does this genre exist?. Band includes: Tiamat, Type O Negative, Anathema, Jesu (Maybe). I think these groups can be considered sympho doom.

Is Avenged Sevenfold counted?

I was wondering if the two songs Strength of the World and The Wicked End, off of Avenged Sevenfold's City of Evil would be counted as symphonic metal/

No Avenged Sevenfold has nothing to do with Symphonic metal. Which brings up something else are peole just listing bands that have like one or two Symponic sounding songs? If so then that really needs to stop.

After Forever, Epica, Nightwish, Edenbridge that's fine they really are Symphonic metal. Turemetalfan Aug 3rd, 2007

Tiamat

I removed Tiamat because they are just ,not symphonic metal.

Consider reusing the word "classical" music

The term classical music, when used correctly, directly refers to a period of time in music. It is not just music that has symphonic elements. This was misused throughout the entire article. I also noticed that the article, halfway through, is reduced to a list. There seems to be very little information in the article other than saying that "Symphonic metal" sounds "classical"

IMHO, the article deserves a major rewrite. 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)~ShatteredHorizon

• Regardless of that, there is no denying that idiosyncratically, orchestral music and the like is referred to as classical regardless of the time period in which it was written. Modern composers making the same sort of music are still considered classical, and even though it may not be strictly grammatically correct, it is sufficiently recognised idiosyncratically to render the point moot I reckon. It wouldn't actually accomplish anything just to replace the word "classical" with something else every time it's mentioned on that basis.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Gathering

As for the female/symphonic part in Origins, there was a lot of stuff between Therion and Nightwish/Within Temptation not mentioned. allmusic.com refers to The Gathering as "symphonic metal" (the early albums). Their first album was in 1993 and a few of the songs have female vocals. The Gathering's 1995 album had all female vocals. Theatre of Tragedy's first album came out in 1995 and has a lot of female vocals. Megabayse 21:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac?

What does Fleetwood Mac have to do with Metal music? --Turemetalfan (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I propose we create new articles for these lists, link them and only include 5 or six of the super-notable bands on this page. /discuss. -- Librarianofages (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Symphonica

Unless some can back this up stop adding the band to the list. Truemetalfan --98.224.211.86 14:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvangeste

How come Tvangeste is mentioned in the list of Symphonic power metal bands? Just because they sings about knights and "fighting for the freedom!"? But without reducing power metal to lyrical content, their music (PLAYING and singing-STYLE) has nothing to do with 'high and loud singing', 'fast speed metal-beat', 'fast palm muted speed metal riffs' or the 'shredding guitarsolos' at all. Therefore im quite deleting them from the list. Please, give an ANSWER!!

Citations

The number of citations needed is truly unreal on this article.. therefore I was wondering if any of you would be interested in a little work-group to clear them all up.. i'm pretty busy at the moment, but I will begin regardless of whether I get anyone else to help in about a week. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article reads like one giant original research essay. It's a problem that affects almost every genre article on wikipedia. These articles are very hard to source properly and everyone is an expert pushing there own theories. I've been considering restarting the genres project and making a push to remove original research from article and getting rid of some of the sub-sub-sub genres. I've found articles about genres for one band, it's kind of crazy. Ridernyc (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page unsourced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.154.210 (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

List of bands

Unless anybody strongly objects, I went ahead and removed the section "List of bands" from the article, and added a link to the full list in the "See also" section. It seemed to add clutter (and redundancy) to the article by having the list in there. --Managerpants (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Epic metal" paragraph

I have removed the following paragraph, which was added by an IP (that has, among several apparently legitimate edits, also vandalised articles) on December 17, 2007:

In 2007 Nightwish have been dubbed with a new genre of the symphonic metal style, this new style being "Epic Metal". Like their previous albums they use orchestra in their 2007 album 'Dark Passion Play', but unlike the last two albums, the orchestra plays on every song. Songs such as 'The Poet And The Pendulum', 'Sahara', '7 Days To The Wolves' and 'Amaranth' help to contribute to the new style.

Do I really need to explain all the problems involved with this paragraph? I cannot understand why the paragraph has been left in for such a long time. Sure, there is a lot of unsourced material in the article, but it makes sense at least. This paragraph is just blatant nonsense. Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Obvious Oddities

I'm doubt the accuracy of the following:

"In the early 2000s a surge of symphonic metal occurred, with many bands seemingly releasing albums from nowhere. Rain Fell Within, After Forever, Epica, and Edenbridge all released albums around this time, displaying prominently the characteristic keyboards and female vocals. These bands also emphazised the upbeat nature of the music. This boom of symphonic metal bands also began to take more influence from power metal, borrowing from the lyrical theme of fantasy and the stylized, epic-like keyboards of that genre"

Of the four bands listed the only one that seems to fit this description is Edenbridge. What is meant by "upbeat nature"? In 2000 After Forever released Prison of Desire (which lends itself as much to gothic metal and doom metal as power metal), in 2001 - Decipher, and in 2003 Epica released The Phantom Agony. The only album Rain Fell Within has released is Refuge. Which one of these albums is supposed to be up beat and which one feature fantasy-style themes (I can think of one song on all four albums that lyrically has a resemeblance to power metal - Black Tomb)? 58.105.180.121 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WHERE ARE THE SOURCES!?

Honestly speaking, why are there NO sources? In the references-section it reads nothingness.

Damn, please reply!

OK, Reply: It's hard to find sources for lots of knowledge in metal music. If you think something is incorrect, tell us or edit for yourself, but don't request sources! Pagen HD (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Epica - Facade of Reality.ogg

The image Image:Epica - Facade of Reality.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Supertzar by Black Sabbath

Supertzar is off the 1975 Sabotage album and it seems like there should be some mention of this song somewhere in here.

When I first heard this, I had to check this twice because I figured that it was misnamed therion song.

Chris12345678 (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nightwish example

I think we should put in a song by Nightwish for an example of Symphonic Metal. Possiblly "Nemo" or "I Wish I had an Angel" or "7 Days to the Wolves"

Those songs highlight the impressive vocals, orchestra, and keyboards that the bands in the genre generally use. Erikster (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Erikster