Talk:Rock opera/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Rock opera. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Removal of Bohemian Rhapsody from article
this edit, which removed a mention of one of the most operatic singles in rock history, should be reverted. — goethean ॐ 23:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's just one five-minute song on an album of completely unrelated material. It's completely self-contained and has no coherent storyline. It's not a rock opera, so why should it be included? Because it's operatic? The same could be said for Queen's Brighton Rock and March of the Black Queen. Friginator (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, it seems you've decided to edit war over this rather than discuss it. Please don't continue. Discuss the changes here. Friginator (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I had wrongly assumed that you would not remove well-sourced, clearly appropriate content. — goethean ॐ 19:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- why should it be included?
- Because a reliable source calls it a rock opera. — goethean ॐ 19:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- This "reliable source" of yours is only one page out of a book that has nothing to do with the subject of rock opera. The word "rock opera" appears once in the entire book: the page mentioning Bohemian Rhapsody. Quite simply put, Bohemian Rhapsody is not six minutes and is not a rock opera. Just because a book on English literature mentions it doesn't mean the statement is reliably sourced. Many sources refer to Bohemian Rhapsody as a "mini-rock opera" or something like that, but I don't see any reason to include those either. This is a case where the definition of the subject is more important than semantics. Friginator (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. The definition of a rock opera seems to be fairly subjective, and even if we went with the article's own definition of a rock opera Bohemian Rhapsody meets the qualifications. The reverted edit suggested that Bohemian Rhapsody has been referred to as a rock opera. It has. A quick Google books search shows that Jay Warner's This Day in Music History refers to Bohemian Rhapsody as a rock opera. (p. 250) Darren Noel's Pocket Guide to Wedding Speeches and Toasts also calls it a seven-minute rock opera. (p. 243) I don't see why, if there are other reliable resources out there that refer to it as a "mini-rock opera" why that should be irrelevant. In my opinion the edit should stand.Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Bohemian Rhapsody is exactly 5 minutes and 55 seconds long, not 7 minutes. Noel is wrong on even such a simple, easily verifiable fact! Just because somebody, somewhere calls something XY in passing does not make this true or even relevant for inclusion. Citing random remarks like that is akin to quotemining. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. The definition of a rock opera seems to be fairly subjective, and even if we went with the article's own definition of a rock opera Bohemian Rhapsody meets the qualifications. The reverted edit suggested that Bohemian Rhapsody has been referred to as a rock opera. It has. A quick Google books search shows that Jay Warner's This Day in Music History refers to Bohemian Rhapsody as a rock opera. (p. 250) Darren Noel's Pocket Guide to Wedding Speeches and Toasts also calls it a seven-minute rock opera. (p. 243) I don't see why, if there are other reliable resources out there that refer to it as a "mini-rock opera" why that should be irrelevant. In my opinion the edit should stand.Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This "reliable source" of yours is only one page out of a book that has nothing to do with the subject of rock opera. The word "rock opera" appears once in the entire book: the page mentioning Bohemian Rhapsody. Quite simply put, Bohemian Rhapsody is not six minutes and is not a rock opera. Just because a book on English literature mentions it doesn't mean the statement is reliably sourced. Many sources refer to Bohemian Rhapsody as a "mini-rock opera" or something like that, but I don't see any reason to include those either. This is a case where the definition of the subject is more important than semantics. Friginator (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
definition
The current definition states "A rock opera is a musical work that presents a storyline told over multiple parts, songs or sections". Well, that's true of many "musical works", including classical opera, oratorios, cantatas and song-cycles. What makes a rock opera a rock opera is rock music! Paul B (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Difference
A Rock Opera is a concept album that has been preformed on a stage like Broadway while a concept album was only put on a cd. Albums like the Black Parade or Twenty First Century Breakdown should only be listed under concept albums while Albums like Tommy or American Idiot should be listed under Rock Opera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.187.98 (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where are you getting this definition from in reliable sources? Narthring (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- So a concert doesn't count as being "performed on a stage"? By that logic, The Wall by Pink Floyd or The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway by Genesis wouldn't count. By your definition, the only two I can think of would be the Rice/Webber operas Jesus Christ Superstar and Evita. Can you name any other concept albums that were performed as major stage shows? Even American Idiot and Tommy wouldn't count, because the Broadway versions were completely different from the albums and changed the stories considerably. And do you have any reliable sources? Friginator (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Trans-Siberian Orchestra
I don't see their opera listed: Christmas Eve and Other Stories, The Christmas Attic, Beethoven's Last Night, The Lost Christmas Eve and the two-disc Night Castle. Any objection to adding these to the article? Pkeets (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Rice & Webber Collaborations
Wikipedia itself documents at least 3 collaborative works after Evita (1976) between Tim Rice & Andrew Lloyd Webber. We should find a way to correct this line: "The last collaboration of Rice and Lloyd Webber was Evita, which is supposedly considered a rock opera, along with Broadway musical styled songs." perhaps to "Another collaboration of Rice and Lloyd Webber was Evita, which is supposedly considered a rock opera, along with Broadway musical styled songs." I'm making this correction and leave it up to others to find a more "sexy" approach to correcting this.
While I'm a big fan of Evita, I personally disagree that Evita is a rock opera, because I'd call the style of music distinctly Webber-esque orchestral music, not Rock. Heck, it's more opera than rock opera. There's influence from tango and Spanish music, etc. and not a whole lot of "rock" about it. Since Tim Rice & Webber are not rock musicians taking a foray into a concept album, I'm not at all certain why any of their works are mentioned...but that goes without correction on the main page, and is open to debate. Musicals are musicals, rock operas are rock operas -- and yes, there can be crossover but usually rock operas start as concept albums (i.e. Tommy) before they see stage or screen.The Crisses (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it was a concept album billed as an "An Opera Based on the Life of Eva Peron" with rock music on it, though I agree that it's different. I'm not opposed to it being removed, for the reasons you've just mentioned, even if it might technically count. Friginator (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)