Jump to content

Talk:Rock opera/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Coheed & Cambria

Are Coheed & Cambria considered a 'rock opera' band? The albums, album artwork, related comic books etc follow a story that is told through first-person narration - however, the songs themselves don't provide us with the entire plot; one could compare them more to soliloquys and the like. Methinks this definition of rock opera leaves a little to be desired. Zombequin (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On Chicago's "Ballet For A Girl In Buchanon"

Perhaps you don't have a real good ear for Chicago music. If you listen to the entire cycle closely, you will be able to tell that "Ballet" does tell a definite story...a man searching for a lost love. "Make Me Smile" sets the plot in motion (listen closely to its lyrics). Although four of the songs have vocals, it is clear that there is a connective storyline throughout the song cycle. Any Chicago fan would pick up on this.

So I hereby propose that "Ballet For A Girl In Buchanon" by Chicago be restored to the list.

You proposed it and did it within a couple of minutes -- not much time for discussion of your proposal! Anyway, I removed it again. I looked at the lyrics; I even pulled out and listened to the album. As much as I like Chicago, this can in no way be defended as a "rock opera" -- of the seven tracks three are instrumentals and one is a single-verse reprise of the first. There are no characters or plot development. It's three rather simple love songs tied together with instrumental bridges; with some work you can imagine they describe the arc of a single relationship, but that's a song cycle or suite (as it is described on the album's liner notes), not an opera. I've followed Chicago for years and to my knowledge they've never described this suite as a rock opera, either. Let's discuss here before changing it again, please. Jgm 17:16, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Final rebuttal on Chicago

Once again, I urge you (and all Chicago fans) to listen to the whole suite carefully, bit by bit, and you will find out that "Ballet For A Girl In Buchanon" is a rock opera with a subliminal storyline of a broken relationship. You will find that there is no comparison. This is, in my opinion, Chicago's (or James Pankow's) best work.

Case closed.

We agree that it's good stuff, and needs to be included in Wikipedia, just not cited as a rock opera. There is a page for Ballet For A Girl In Buchannon (correct spelling, BTW) that discusses the work in more detail. Clearly we disagree about categorization; given the definition of rock opera that's been developed here it doesn't fit. I think if nothing else we should call it what the band calls it (see the album liner notes or the band's official page [1], which is "suite" or "song cycle". Jgm 12:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

"Ballet" IS a rock opera

In closing, I would like to make the following comment...in one of the Chicago fan sites, composer James Pankow makes the following statement..." 'Ballet' is, for all...purposes, the first 'Tommy' ". What does that tell you? Pankow does indirectly acknowledge that "Ballet" IS a rock opera. Pankow also makes a back reference to The Who's groundbreaking rock opera.

Yes, we do indeed disagree that we place this under different categories, but sometime in the foreseeable future I will reinstate "Ballet" under the rock opera category.

So in my humble opinion, based on the construction and lyrics of the piece, this is cleary a rock opera, and must be treated as such.

One thing it tells me is that someone is confused -- Tommy was released a year before Chicago II. "One of the fan sites" is not much of a reference, either. Once more, despite your constant statements to the contrary, none of the narrative or structural attributes of an opera are present in this work -- if you think there's plot development, or characters, or an epic story (please not a "subliminal" one), cite them. I would again recommend you consider adding something to song cycle or suite to cover such things in popular music, including "Buchannon". Also please sign your contributions here. Jgm 17:54, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, OK. I guess there is a difference. For now, at least, we'll call it a song cycle or suite.

hiphats

Further comment on "Buchannon"

As I mentioned, for now at least, "Buchannon" shall remain labeled a song cycle or suite. However, I would like to quote the web site I was talking about previously. This came from a 1999 interview with composer James Pankow at www.debbiekruger.com that suggests that "Buchannon" is a rock opera...

Quoting James Pankow himself...:

"...this "Ballet" was kind of my attempt to take the band into a kind of a classical realm, and marry classical music with this pop phenomenon that we were part of. So the "Ballet" was for all intents and purposes the first Tommy or... Just as The Who created this rock opera called Tommy which was obviously more extensive a piece and was indeed set to theatrics, the "Ballet" was kind of a mini capsulized version of something of that nature."

I'll leave it up to the rest of you fans out there to draw your own conclusions before anymore changes are made to this entry.--Hiphats 05:43, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Asks User:MMBKG. I say "all of them" -- as noted in the text, Townshend is the artist most associated with the form, and, as opposed to some of the more borderline cases that keep getting added to the list, all the albums of his cited meet the definition. I also don't think we need plot summaries here since the links to the articles are right there. Jgm 23:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Removed * (link removed because of spam filter --Lairor 10:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)) Petition to add Pete Townshend to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Belongs with the Pete Townshend article, and maybe not even there. leigh 04:29, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

"Bat out of Hell" albums have clear concepts

One need only glance at the song titles on these two albums and the concept becomes crystal clear. "Bat out of Hell" and its sequel "Back Into Hell" revolve around the trials and tribulations of teenage life. Meat Loaf is a singer whose roots lie in rock operas/musicals: He appeared in a production of "Hair" and, most famously, as the character Eddie in the London production of "The Rocky Horror Show" and its movie equivalent, "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." Additionally all the songs on both albums were composed by one Jim Steinman, who is also known for the musicals "Tanz der Vampire" and Whistle Down the Wind" which he authored and co-authored respectively. So we have a theatrical singer performing a a group of conceptually linked rock songs written by a theatrical composer. That sounds a lot like a rock opera to me. And furthermore, comparisons can be easily drawn from Meat Loaf's ambitious live performances of this material to similar concept tours like Genesis' "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" and Pink Floyd's "The Wall." Lairor 03:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


How come the Bat Out of Hell series isnt listed on this?? Meat Loaf is synomous for Operattic Rock. 166.217.236.77 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bat Out of Hell albums do indeed have a common theme, as mentioned. But they do not tell a set story, and therefore are concept albums, not rock operas. And as far as the musical style being operatic, Jim Steinman refers to it as Wagnerian rock, not rock opera. KearF (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Can't help but mention that I first read the above as "Wankerian rock", a descriptor with which I can wholeheartedly agree as applied to Mr. Loaf's platters. Anyway, I agree that there is a difference between rock in an operatic style (which ML certainly puts out), and a "rock opera" (which he has never pulled off). Jgm (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Godspell" qualifying as a rock opera

In order to identify "Godspell" as a rock opera we must first understand what a rock opera is. On this page it is defined as "a musical production in the form of an opera or a musical in a modern rock and roll style." In other words, a musical that is made up of, contains, or is heavily influenced by rock music. Just because "Godspell" wasn't first recorded as a concept album the way "Jesus Christ Superstar" or "Evita" were, does not disqualify it for rock opera status. If you choose to call it a rock musical then so be it but the two terms, truthfully, are interchangeable. As to any musical soundtrack being called a rock opera, this is not true. For example, "Cats", while it is a modern-day musical that is definitely influenced by rock and pop music, it cannot be called a rock opera simply because it does not contain rock music. "Godspell" on the other hand, does. Lairor 03:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to disagree there. Many so called rock operas have never had a stage show made, and were merely albums, they achieve rock opera status by their ability to tell a story through the album, not nessecarily the stage, just as any traditional opera can. Listening to "Godspell" or "Grease" in soudtrack form, however rock influenced, it is still reliant on the stage show to tell the story. Perhaps we need a new category, Rock Musicals? Makenji-san 05:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering where the idea that a traditional "Opera" just as easily tells the story through the album versus performance on stage? Operas were designed to be performed on stage with set pieces etc. The fact that albums exist has nothing to do with anything. Thanks-Broadwaygal 18:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, listening to "S.F. Sorrow" it's pretty much impossible to discern a clear story but that doesn't make it not a rock opera. Even in the world of classical operas, not all works have clear cut storylines. Philip Glass' "Einstein on the Beach" is a good example of this. And in the case of "Godspell" it's a story that practically everyone in the western world already knows so it takes some liberties and lets the listener fill in the details. Lairor 10:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Just thought of another point, who ever said the term "rock opera" refers to just the musical aspect. Th visual and dramatic parts are still very much part of the rock opera. Lairor 11:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Lairor, the terms are interchangeable. Broadwaygal 18:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band

I've never hear Sergeant Pepper's referred to as a rock opera, nor can I see why it would be. A Day In The Life may give an impression, but the album as a whole isn't a rock opera. It's own page admits that the although it's called a concept album, the concept is dropped for most of the album. Is there any reason why it's here?


The Who

Should a individual song on an album count as a rock opera? If we are listing the closing tracks to The Who Sell Out and A quick One whats to stop us dubbing other rock ballads as rock operas? I have removed these two entries, I you would challenge this please say so...

Lyrics

Are there any rock operas with poetic lyrics? If you would find any please notify me...203.214.75.127

Ayreon Has a few albums out and most of them are rock operas. One of Ayreon's best rock opera album is The Human Equation and another is Into the Electric Castle

Deimoss 03:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Superstar

I have moved Jesus Christ Superstar from the Rock Musical list to Rock Opera. This is because I have worked on the theatre show and have heard the album, and on both it was titled "Jesus Christ Superstar : A Rock Opera". The opening sentence on the JCS page is "Jesus Christ Superstar is a rock opera by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber.". The concept album came before the show was produced and the libretto of the album makes up all the dialogue for the show. In both the theatre show and film there is no spoken dialogue. JP Godfrey 11:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with this, but Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat is the first Andrew Lloyd Webber/Tim Rice composition and production in this style, and it also has a Biblical theme. It really should be mentioned here as well. Shocking Blue (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Electric Prunes?

I was checking out the Page on Mass in F Minor and it doesn't appear to be a rock opera. Its Latin pryers set to rock music, sounds way more like a concept album to me... Now, as I haven't heard it, I could be wrong, so I'm asking anyone who's heard it, Is there a Story to it? Makenji-san 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

List too long

What's the point in having a list like this that is supposed to contain merely some examples, when the article "List of rock operas" contains about as many? I propose to radically cut this list and restrict them to essential albums by fairly well known artists. Although I love Ayreon, Symphony X, Kamelot and the like, I doubt that they need to be on this page. Furthermore, please be critical about some other albums in the list. I don't know all of them but if you do, could you check whether they fit the description given in the first part of the article. A concept album (even if it has a story) is NOT necessarily a rock opera. I'll wait for reactions a couple of days, and will proceed trimming this list after that. Cheers. Petergee1 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I think this list should really be "notable" rock operas with a peice of text describing why they are notable (not text describing what the rock opera is about... unless that is why it is notable of corse). Then the "List of rock operas" page is the place to dump _all_ of the rock operas with a short description of the rock opera itself. Cheers to you Petergee1, i say commence the trimming (and relocating to the list) ASAP. --V3rt1g0 17:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, so I started for you, this is just a first draft proposal, if anyone dislikes my jumping the gun a bit, go ahead and revert. P.S. the Rock Musicals section was also rather long, so I gave that its own list. Dragoonmac 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Great start, thank you. I still think there should be justification as to why a rock opera is still listed in the notable list. Some text that says something about what makes it notable (meaning why it's special enough to make this list vs just being on the general list). Great work! --V3rt1g0 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I left the few I did in there because each one was a "first of its kind" and "recognizable". My Experiences may not be correct though. Either way, I'm leaving this comment as the work we did is slowly being undone. Non-registered (or logged out) users keep adding albums to the examples section. Is there some type of tag we could post that says, "This is not a List of rock operas, the albums on this are examples of the genre. Any additions should be added to List of rock operas, or discussed on the talk page first." Dragoonmac 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Great idea! Maybe don't make it so editor-centric, but instead more reader-centric; where it's like "This is not a extensive list, but rather a list of notable rock operas. For a more complete list see List of rock operas (albums)" or something like that. Basically leave out the "any additions to this list" type talk. If you want you could use <!-- HTML comments --> at the beginning of the section header to tell the editor that this list is not supposed to be the complete list, and only add as needed, or discuss on the Talk page first. That way the editor note can still be there but not be visible to the reader of the page who is here to learn about the genere. If you don't wanna give it a stab, maybe I could come up with something myself, but I say go for it. --V3rt1g0 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll hand this one off to you boss, I'm still learning. Dragoonmac 01:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


This may seem kind of jaded but should greenday really be on the list? I mean yes it was a concept album, but it was ripped off from another one

Rock musicals

Alright since "rock musical" redirects here and since there's a list of notable ones I thought maybe there should at least be a paragraph on the rock opera's more stage-inclined brethren. The paragraph I came up with is (as of this post) the third, the one that starts with "The earliest example...". I'm still not entirely satisfied by how it sits in regard to the rest of the article and I think some paragraphs might need to be shuffled around so someone can do that or I'll do it when am able to put my finger on what exactly is not satisfying me.

As an aside, do we really need that Orfeo 9 paragraph. It says it was "probably the first [rock opera] in the world to be staged" but yet it was staged in 1970, three years after Hair. Searching Google doesn't bring up a whole lot and I'm wondering if it is really that notable of a project. Furthermore, that paragraph appears to me to be a paraphrase of either Tito Schipa Jr.'s IMDb bio ("His debut took place in Rome with "Then an Alley"(Piper Club, May 1967), world first experiment of pop opera based on Bob Dylan's song-poems. His own pop opera 'Orfeo 9" (1970) was the first one to be composed in ltaly and the first one to be staged in the world") or this possibly official page ("First Rock-Opera composed in Italy, first to be staged in the world. Conducted by Bill Conti (Oscar) with a all-star cast...") or maybe both. Also this double album doesn't even have an allmusic.com entry and Tito Schipa Jr. barely has one. One last point, it's kind of misleading to call Bill Conti an Oscar winner as the album came out in '72 and he didn't win an Oscar until '83.

That is all.--Lairor 23:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone's an Oscar winner regardless of when they win the award. MusicMaker5376 08:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The first rock musical

According to the fairly authoritative musicals101.com, Hair was not the first rock musical. That title belongs to a play called "Your Own Thing," which opened Off-Broadway in 1968, prior to its better-known successor. See http://www.musicals101.com/1960bway3.htm, and scroll down to the middle of the page. --Idols of Mud 18:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is insane

It is my opinion that this article is in need of a DRASTIC re-write. The definition supplied for "Rock Opera" is ENTIRELY ignored in the rest of the article, and its too inclusive. A Rock Opera, like a regular opera, is a musical work that can be staged BY ACTORS IN ITS CURRENT FORM. I'll be the first to admit that not all opera makes a hell of a lot of sense -- Einstein on the Beach is a great example -- but, come on, you can't stage Bat Out of Hell. Granted, many of the songs are dramatic in nature -- Meat Loaf is a musical theater "actor" -- but you couldn't put that on a stage with any degree of relatability. (Before I hear an argument that Einstein on the Beach has no relatable plot, let me say this: it isn't trying to relate one. It's meant to be a collection of images that might go through Einstein's mind as he relaxes on a beach.)
Bernstein's Mass only VAGUELY contains rock music. Most of it is nothing near rock. At all. It's a pretty interesting look at ALL types of music from modern classical to marching band, but to mention this work in the same breath as Tommy is pure insanity. It's not even considered a musical or an opera: it's referred to as "A Theater Piece". Just because a rock band is involved doesn't mean it's a rock opera. There's also a marching band. And a full orchestra.
An opera is commonly held to be thorough-sung, as in there is no dialogue. Therefore, so should a rock opera. Later, Godspell (I fail to see how a song like All For the Best would be in a rock opera, anyway....). Buh-bye, The Wiz. Furthermore, The Wiz isn't even rock: it's blues and funk. Musicals, them both.
Okay, this one hurts. Who put up Gamehendge? Don't get me wrong, I love Phish -- huge phan -- but it's not a rock opera. The decidedly odd subject matter notwithstanding, you could not stage it in its current form. I've thought about this. I would LOVE to stage it. But 50% of it is Trey's narration. That's the only thing actually telling you the story; the songs actually relate very little about the plot. (I didn't say "not at all to the plot," I said "very little." And, let's face it, Trey's narration is what makes it.)
The Wall -- and this one I expect some contention upon -- really isn't a rock opera. "But there was a movie based on it." Yeah, an AWESOME movie, but they wrote more music for it, they changed things around, they left stuff out. It's a concept album. It was built around the concept that the band had become so full of themselves and felt so removed from their audience that they had built up a wall. The original concerts were HUGE in scope -- spending the first half building a wall, then playing the second half from behind it -- but that's not an opera. That's the beginnings of an idea for an opera.
The rest of the albums I don't know, but I'd be willing to doubt that any of them could be staged. If it's about one guy, odds are it isn't a rock opera. An opera has characters. Like, lots. (And when I say I doubt that something could be staged, I don't mean because of technical difficulties. I mean because it's missing one or more of the following: plot, setting, characters, conflict, resolution.)
It's my opinion that the phrase "rock opera" has been thrown around too liberally over the past 30 years by people who don't really know what they're talking about. Just because you put together a great concept album, doesn't suddenly make it a rock opera. It's just a really good concept album. It might one day be a rock opera. But, right now, its a concept album.
And who made the distinction between rock opera and rock musical -- to me it's a little arbitrary. How is Superstar an opera, but Evita a musical? It's DEFINITELY as operatic as Superstar, if not more so. Why is Rent a musical and not an opera? IT'S BASED ON AN OPERA!!! The distinction between musical and opera is 1) a musical has as much dialogue as music and 2) the subject matter is "operatic" in an opera and is almost entirely sung.
I think there are five true rock operas, and thats it: Tommy, Quadrophenia, Evita, Jesus Christ Superstar, and Rent. These have characters, a plot, a clearly defined setting, conflict, and a resolution. They are entirely sung, and I could stage any one of them within the next two months.
I think we need to redefine our paramters of "rock opera". If you can consider Mass a rock opera, you can consider Cats a rock opera (it's got some rock). If you can consider Genesis a rock opera, you can consider Europe's The Final Countdown an opera.
I'm sorry this is so long but, honestly, this is one of the worst articles I've seen on WP.
MusicMaker5376 08:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a few other rock operas that could be staged: a notable omission, which is a Rock Opera on the perfect meaning of the word is Nikolo Kotzev, Nostradamus (2001). It´s meant to be staged. I think it should make in to the list of notable rock operas. Also Pain of Salvation, Be, could be staged, although you could argue it is a Metal opera instead (Metal and Rock opera seems to be used interchangeably sometimes). Regards. Loudenvier 19:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that it was my understanding that Bernstein's Mass was never called a rock opera, but simply is one this page as an example of an early use of rock music in stage musicals.--Lairor 06:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Zen Arcade?

I am certainly not an authority on the subject, but it seems to me very innacurate to attribute American Idiot as the first punk rock opera, a title which as far as I know goes to Husker Du's Zen Arcade. I suppose it's semi-on the line between concept album and rock opera, but it does have a clear plot, I feel. Certainly even if it isn't in-and-of itself defined as rock opera, I feel it sets a precedent in the sense that it is widely considered the first and should be attributed in some way. It is at least as deserving of a mention than American Idiot, if not more so. I would've just gone in and added it but I thought perhaps I'd better just throw it out there first.

NMDreyer 03:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

List still too long

This list is getting way out of hand: many of the albums listed do not remotely qualify as rock operas, in my opinion. Some are are regarded as concept albums; others (Meat Loaf?) don't even qualify in that respect. I propose to remove the following from the list:

  • David Bowie, The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From Mars

not a rock opera, barely a concept album

  • Chicago, Ballet For A Girl In Buchanon (1970): song cycle off of the album Chicago II

a song cycle does not an opera make; this suite does not tell a story of any sort

  • Moulin Rouge!: A stretch, uses a collection of rock songs from many sources to tell a story.

Moulin Rouge is not an album. The soundtrack album is simply a collection of songs, no story involved

  • Meat Loaf, Bat out of Hell and Bat out of Hell II: Back Into Hell

Not even concept albums

  • Roger Waters, Radio K.A.O.S. (1987)

Concept album

  • The Kinks, Preservation Act 1, Preservation Act 2, A Soap Opera, and Schoolboys in Disgrace

Concept albums all

I also have problems with Godspell, as it is a soundtrack from a stage musical and/or film; by this token nearly any musical soundtrack album could be listed, which is clearly outside the realm of rock opera.

If anyone has problems with this, please let's discuss now. Jgm 02:13, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I could not find any mention of The Saga of Happiness Stan on side 2 of Ogden's Nut Gone Flake by The Small Faces. It tells the story of Happiness Stan's quest for the other half of the moon, and it seems pretty rock-operary to me.

Green Day

American Idiot by Green Day is often described in press as a rock opera. It's a recent and incredibly popular example. Much of the discussion seems loath to expand the list, but what are people's thoughts on adding this one? Binerman 19:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remove it. Concept albums are different from rock operas, whether critics know it or not (that also says something about critics). Teke 18:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I Removed, Greenday, just for the sake that punk sucks, and well American idiot is NOT a rock opera Deimoss 22:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion that "punk sucks" isn't exactly encyclopedic is it? If you have heard the album it is clear that there is a theme. I say re-instate it unless you have something to back up your claim. Here is a source[[2]] By the way it is Green Day 2 words. --60.230.2.34 12:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

it does have the characteristics of a rock opera in that lyrics are sung in the first person by characters of the story but the reference to punk rock has no place as, as far as i know, they have no link to that movement whatsoever. I also have no idea why kurt cobian's journal are mentioned there. Relevance? --80.41.28.81 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rock opera is a legit genre of opera; Split category for albums only vs. staged works?

I have been arguing these issues on the opera talk page. If anyone can shed more light on these issues, please add to that discussion. --Ssilvers 20:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Rock opera cannot be considered a legitimate subgenre of opera because it does not follow or even attempt to follow operatic form in most cases. When you get into the works of Andrew Lloyd Webber, you might have a case there, but such things as Who albums cannot be considered true operas. In fact, there was an earlier discussion where we addressed the need for the article to clarify that rock operas would not be considered "operas" in the technical sense, but closer to oratorios or song cycles. Beggarsbanquet 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that perhaps we should divide those works that are albums only; and those that have been staged, either in a live theatre performance or a film. What do you all think? --Ssilvers

Were's Bat out of Hell ??

Someone's written just here, that BooH isn't notable enough so that we needn't mention it. I say: It is notable! Because with 37 million sold records it's the most successful rock opera! --Hattakiri 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree Jasontk (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Crimson Idol"

W.A.S.P.'s "The Crimson Idol" is the excellent rock-opera too.

Re: Bat out of Hell and American Idiot

I added Bat Out of Hell to the list, and removed American Idiot. I think that it is pretty unanimous that Bat Out of Hell needed to be added to this list. I removed American Idiot since (it is my opinion that) it is not a particularly influential to the genre and it is debatable whether it is a rock opera at all.

Opera or rock?

Hi, I'm seeking advice about whether to reclassify an entry at Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Someone added the 1971 rock opera The Survival of St. Joan to this featured list as an opera (along with Verdi and Tchaikovski) rather than in the popular music section. Should I move this over to popular culture or keep it with opera? Durova 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad List

Not only American Idiot is not a Rock Opera but a concept album, it's missing the three rock operas the Kinks did: Preservation Act I and Act II, Soap Opera and Schoolboys In Disgrace.

Not only that but as far as i can tell the list isnt organized in any particular order. -unregistered user


Let's define NOTABLE

So, I think there's probably a reason for the existance of this article: List of rock operas (albums), but it's hard to tell with how cluttered the list is on this page. I'm thinking that this list should probably include 5 max: Tommy and The Wall will be shoe-ins and we'll have to debate on the others. There seems to be a lot upset over American Idiot's inclusion so I'd like to defend it as album (not its music): Okay, just because you don't think something is a rock opera, or there is absolutely no discernable story then it may just be a bad rock opera, and I mean, look at Philip Glass' Einstein on the Beach, it has no story whatsoever but noone ever contests its position as an opera. Whether you like it or not the critics are the ones that invent genre and slot different artists and albums into them. Whether or not a particular rock opera is very good has very little to do with NOTABILITY. But debates about Green Day can come later, here is something I'd really like to point out:

The following articles do not contain the words "rock opera" anywhere in the body of the article. Most are described as concept albums, however:

Meat Loaf, Bat Out Of Hell David Bowie, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars Genesis, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway Jethro Tull, Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young to Die Rush, 2112 Queensrÿche, Operation: Mindcrime Queensrÿche, Operation: Mindcrime II Edge of Sanity, Crimson Metropolis Pt. 2: Scenes From A Memory Spock's Beard, Snow Ayreon, The Human Equation Mastodon, Leviathan Jack's Mannequin, Everything in Transit My Chemical Romance, The Black Parade

And no, this is not an invitation for you do quick run and awkwardly force the words "rock opera" somewhere in the article. I think this page needs a small list (I think 5) and one that we can decide on by consensus. Let's talk.--Lairor 06:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to quickly point out that my use of Einstein on the Beach in no way is arguing for inclusion of "rock operas" that have no plot, but rather just because a storyline may be harder to discern, that doesn't necessarily give means for disclusion.
Oh also, it's in my opinion that we should do away with the whole rock opera/rock musical thing, and instead list rock operas that are primarily regarded as studio albums (e.g. Tommy, The Wall) and rock operas that are primarily regarded as stage productions (e.g. JC Superstar, Rent). Let's talk.--Lairor 06:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, since noone has responded to me, I guess that means noone's going to mind me performing a bold edit or two. Here goes nothing.--Lairor 19:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I support your edits here. Now, are you interested in tilting at the windmill of the list? Jgm 14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What did you have in mind?--Lairor 03:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of contention over the inclusion of American Idiot as a notable entry so allow me to provide my defense. It's my personal opinion that American Idiot is a pretty good album but rather poor rock opera. The storyline is barely discernible and it sounds like every song is being sung by the same character for the most part. That being said, there's supposed to be a coherent story and and the band makes limited use of leitmotifs. Most importantly though, the band considers it a rock opera, as does the press and the majority of music critics. When it first came out it made quite a splash, has moved a ton of units and has gotten a score of favourable reviews and now there are talks of a motion picture adaptation of it. Now if all that's not criteria for notability I'm not sure what is. I'm not saying it should be seen as being in the same league as Tommy that's just ridiculous but American Idiot has secured itself a place as one of the most famous rock operas up there with Tommy and Jesus Christ Superstar. I'd already say it's better known than Quadrophenia.--Lairor 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Kinks' Arthur should be added to the notable list

The Kinks' Arthur (or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire) (1969) should be added to the list of notable rock operas. It is more notable than many of the other albums on the list being that it is one of the first, besides Tommy. It is also much better and more original than some of the stuff at the bottom of the list (i.e. Green Day).

The album is about a man named Arthur who is living in 60's England and reflecting on his life. It is often compared postitvely with Tommy. It was also originally intended as the soundtrack for a movie, as Tommy was/is.

Although it was released a few months after Tommy it was written and recorded around the same time, so it is one of the only rock operas that is not a rip-off of the Who. If Arthur is not notable I do not know what is.

I do not think that Green Day and My Chemicle Romance are worth noting (but that's my opinion of course), and who the heck are Aryeon and Mastodon? I've never even heard of them, let alone their "rock operas". How is their music notable besides the fact that it is new?

Please add Arthur.

What you believe is better and much more original isn't really important, no offense. And while I do think Arthur is a great album, unfortunately it has become relatively obscure in comparison to The Kinks' early music and it also wasn't nearly the influential watershed that Tommy proved to be. I guess it all depends on what the definition of "notable" is and it is at least already on List of rock operas (albums).--Lairor 10:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Tenacious D

Why has Tenacious D been removed from the notable list? It is obviously a rock opera, and being made into a movie counts as notable. Notice how all the others listed also have movie counterparts? If anyone has seen the intro to the movie it's easy to see it's on scale with great works like Tommy. 75.82.242.7 16:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to let it stand if you'd care to provide your justification for it. I'll admit I haven't seen the movie though there seemed to be a lot of dialogue and very little singing in the trailers. Also, check out this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHx3EP8XVsA&mode=related&search=) where Jack Black states that it "isn't really a musical". Thus, it's not so obvious after all.--Lairor 16:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Up until the title scene, it's completely song, so surely we can still list it? Just note it's only the 1st 10 minutes that are all song. 86.3.124.119 (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Messianic themes

Is there such a genre as "rock operas with messianic themes"? Many of my favorite songs can be found in the following:

  • Tommy (rock opera) - a formerly blind pinball wizard picks up (and loses) a huge following
  • Jesus Christ Superstar - Jesus has trouble finding loyal followers, goes reluctantly to the cross
  • Godspell - traditional Christian view of the Messiah (albeit wearing clown makeup)

If this is off-topic, I apologize in advance. --Uncle Ed 13:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Homestar Runner

Don't get me wrong, I find Homestar Runner just as hillarious as the next guy, but is it appropriate to include it in the external links?Supernerd 10 16:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Townshend's inspiration" and the article in general

I've moved the "Townshend's alleged inspiration" section to the Tommy article, as it doesn't belong in an article that [should] talk generally about rock operas.

I also added a paragraph about Tommy, as it was referred to only off-handedly.

I moved things that were out of sequence (like S.F. Sorrow), and retitled the section mis-titled SFS to "Later developments" for lack of a more creative title.

The article still needs work. Seduisant 16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not operas

Nothing has been said about the fact that the term "rock opera" is misleading, and that these works are not in any sense true operas. In fact, in terms of comparison with classical music forms, they are closest to song cycles. I added something but I'm not sure if I said it right, and I can easily see someone taking it down later - can someone maybe fix it and add some citations (I don't know what I would cite for that). Beggarsbanquet 02:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, the first paragraph says that rock operas are "in the form of" an opera. The second paragraph says that rock operas "lack a form reminiscent of actual operas". Leaving aside the fact that both statements are vague, they contradict one another. Perhaps a better approach might be to say that the term is a nickname and leave it at that. There is no discernible connection whatsoever with opera. You might as well try and establish a link with soap opera.--Stevouk 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't go quite that far. They are a step removed from opera, but they still bear some resemblance to it, in the same way that opera is related to musical theater. I made an edit regarding the misnomer, and stated that the phrase "rock oratorio" would be much more appropriate, which is in my opinion the closest thing to rock opera. If anyone disagrees, I of course invite you to argue.--Scorpio3002 27, June 2007
They are more than a step removed from opera; they are completely different. Opera follows a pattern of arias and recitatifs, whereas rock operas usually do not. They often involve the same singer singing similarly-structured material over and over. Even oratorio is stretching it, though if people still want to believe that rock operas can be that close to any form of classical music drama, then fine. Still, song cycle is the closest classical form that rock operas resemble. Beggarsbanquet 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You're definition of opera appears to be a very narrow one. I could list a dozen operas right off the bat that, under your definition, are not operas. After his early works, Wagner completely rejected the ideas of recitative and aria, instead molding the two together into what he called "endless melody". Find me a music theorist who will stake his reputation on the claim that Wagner's "Ring" is not opera, and there's an ice-cream waiting for you. Wagner was the first to use this style, but others have come after him, including Debussy with his "Pelléas et Mélisande", and Schoenberg with "Moses und Aron." A common practice within operas like these is the utilization of Leitmotifs, which I suppose could also be called "similarly-structured material over and over."--Scorpio3002 16, Nov 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 06:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between the Ring Cycle and Tommy. To try to use the changes in form in classical opera to justify that rock operas are true operas is completely ludicrous. At least, the fact that there is considerable disagreement over whether rock operas can be considered true operas or even operettas needs to be added to the article. A reader of the current article would assume that all are in agreement that rock operas can be considered operas, which is of course not true. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to American Idiot

I removed Green Day's American Idiot from "Rock Operas Best Known As Stage Productions" because although there has been rumors, there has yet to be a stage production of it.

I believe It should be removed from rock operas and moved to concept albums because unlike Rent, Tommy, and The Wall, it does not have a concrete storyline that is easy to follow.

I also removed the section on "Punk Rock Operas" because, it was a term coined by the band, and "The Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance is a concept album. I've yet to hear anyone from the band or media call it a punk rock opera or a rock opera. Nbelle 02:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the list of examples because it duplicates what is in List of rock operas, which is linked in the See Also section. The whole point of creating separate list pages such as that is to remove the need for lists within main articles. Spylab 10:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This article deteriorated very seriously since I last looked at it many months ago. Why not have a short list of the most notable rock operas? Also, the important historical pieces should be described better in the article if you want to delete the lists. The article is almost completely unreferenced and just very badly written. The only thing that's worth looking at in it currently is these lists. -- Ssilvers 15:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See my comment above and look around Wikipedia to find out why list pages are created. Feel free to improve the list pages, but do not re-add lists to this article. Spylab 15:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that you've deleted the information from the lists that tells you what years these works were written. I have to say that I disagree with your approach here, to delete information from the article, then delete information from the lists, so that the only way to get any information about these works is to read all their articles. In my opinion, it makes this article and also the lists less useful. Sorry to disagree with you. -- Ssilvers 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to "get me started". I have over 16,000 edits on Wikipedia. Do you think this is a good article? Apparently you don't want my help, so I am unwatching this page, because I don't feel like arguing with you. If you care about this article or this topic, perhaps you will do some research and write something comprehensible. Good luck. -- Ssilvers 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • No, I did not think it was good article when I first found it, and it still needs a lot of work. It had terrible writing, it had an redundant list cluttering up the page, and there were a bunch of unnecessary extra subheadings that seemed to be placed on the page in a random fashion. I have corrected some of the problems, but the writing still needs to be improved; references and footnotes need to be added; the definition of rock opera must be clarified (to differentiate it from a rock musical; and someone needs to clarify what the first rock opera was, because right now there are two different Italian productions being described as the first rock opera in the world. Spylab 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 edits

Holy shit, I'm the one that usually reverts this page every time idiot decides to add stupid stuff to it but I've been absent for awhile. That being said I think this article was way better two months ago then it is now.--Lairor 00:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I've got big things in the pipeline, just give me time.--Lairor 00:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The corrections I made to this article were desperately needed. Please do not revert it to an inferior version that is well below Wikipedia standards. Spylab 11:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I partially reverted my own revertion, incoporating some of your improvements. Please note that rock musical has its own separate article, so this article should focus on rock operas and not really discuss rock musicals. If you feel that the two topics should be discussed in the same article, I suggest you propose a merger between the rock opera and rock musical articles, and see if there is enough support for a merger. Also, there is no need for artificial divisions in the history section, such as "origins" or "later development", since those divisions don't seem to be based on any particular event or date. Spylab 11:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There was never any consensus so as to split the page so I'm not recognizing that new article. Also the divisions are not artificial and they make the article easier to read. It may be your opinion that it wasn't a good article but I've been working on it for some time now and while I realize Wikipedia is a collaborative project I think people should not just barge in unawares and start making big changes that may not sit well with those who have worked on a page for awhile. I honestly consider your version inferior.--Lairor 23:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't split the article into Rock opera and Rock musical, so that is not my concern. If you want the articles merged, add a merge proposal, or just go ahead and merge them without a proposal. In the meantime, this article is about rock operas and the other article is about rock musicals, so the two articles should not duplicate each other. The subheadings were definitely arbitrary and artificial, and had no real rhyme or reason. Pretty much all I have done with this article is replace lists with links to the appropriate full lists, deleted content about rock musicals because it has its own separate article, deleted arbitrary/unnecessary/incorrect headings and improved the grammar and syntax. If you have a problem with specific parts of the article, feel free to make improvements. However, please follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Guide to layout.Spylab 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tommyalbumcover.jpg

Image:Tommyalbumcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Overhaul

This article needs major work and constant patrolling I Never thought I would find something worse then concept albums But this might be it. At least concept album had a nice frame work to restore, this is just a lot fan cruft being added by tons of people.Ridernyc 21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

They are not operas!

Changed the first paragraph to clarify that rock operas are not "true" operas because they do not follow the form of an opera. I think this needs to be clarified. I have studied opera intensively in my music theory and composition classes, and most rock operas do not begin to resemble operas in terms of their form, and it shows a great lack of musical knowledge to say they "resemble the form of an opera" as the article previously stated. They are usually much closer to song cycles (or sometimes oratorios, if you will). Beggarsbanquet 22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The form of opera has changed and morphed considerably since its creation by the Florentine Camerata. Opera today looks much different than it did 300 years ago. Could you please be more specific in your analysis that none of them come close to the form of an opera? Do you have any citations or references that support this argument? Thanks Broadwaygal 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Beggar, I think you are over-analyzing. Rock music, and it's related subgenres (i.e. heavy metal) have become worlds unto themselves. Words applied to rock music may appear to be inaccurate in application, but in the world of rock music, those words make sense. I am speaking of the term "rock opera." But also, the word "rock" itself orginally applies to something like a stone or a boulder, and "metal" orginally applied to an element or alloy, but now these terms apply to forms of music. While rock and metal music have roots in classical music, a rock opera need not resemble a true opera for that term to apply, in my opinion.

Another example of a possible mis-use of musical terminology is the term "neoclassical." In heavy metal, a lot of bands and guitar players are reffered to as "neoclassical metal" or something along those lines. Does this term really make sense? Probably not, but upon listening to Yngwie Malmsteen, for example, one can see why someone might apply the term "neoclassical" to that artist. To me, it simply means a metal artist that is moreso influenced by classical music than others and uses some very classical sounded passages in their songs, or even uses excerpts from Bach et al. in their songs/albums.

I am not sure if I was 100% clear but I hope this helps. Jasontk (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Trans-Siberian Orchestra

If people are interested in adding more works to a list of rock operas, I would suggest Trans-Siberian Orchestra. I think they fit the description well. Jasontk (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Meat Loaf and Jim Steinman's works

I would say most of what's in the Bat-out-of-Hell albums qualify for the rock opera status, but I am not an expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.20.178 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tarja

I wanted to ask if the style of the songs of the soprano Tarja Turunen could qualify as a rock opera genre, it could?--201.208.60.26 (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rock_opera/Archive_1&oldid=1137161481"