Talk:Wagnerian rock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Evanescence
Note: Evanescence has never been formally classed as Wagnerian Rock; the top matches on Google for "Evanescence wagnerian rock" are 2 Bebo accounts, followed by an advertisement for a band and then wikipedia itself. Kypzethdurron 13:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- But Evanescence is some kind of Rock Opera, right? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:32 18 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
This is not a real musical genre. Should redirect to Steinman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.252.81 (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wagnerian rock is not a kind of "rock opera"
Wagnerian rock might be a subgenre of popera, but it isn't a subgenre of rock opera. The term "rock opera" does not mean rock music with operatic elements or performed in an operatic style. It refers to a collection of rock songs that tell a dramatic story, with The Who's Tommy being the classic example. Any style of rock music can be used when composing a rock opera. One certainly could have a rock opera that was entirely in the Wagnerian rock style, just as one could have a punk rock opera (e.g. Green Day's American Idiot), but Wagnerian rock is no more a subgenre of rock opera than punk rock is. A stand-alone song in the Wagnerian rock style has nothing to do with "rock opera" at all. CKarnstein (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- With only a few exceptions, all of Jim Steinman's songs are inspired by J.M. Barrie's "Peter Pan." That makes Steinman's flavor of Wagnerian rock an ongoing story. The song "Bat Out of Hell" would stand alone about as well as "Pinball Wizard", one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.61.27 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's a pretty loose definition of "ongoing story" you're using, but even if true it doesn't make any difference. The term "rock opera" refers to the structure of a collection of songs, while "Wagnerian rock" refers to the musical style. It doesn't make any sense to say that Wagnerian rock is a subgenre of rock opera, because the two terms are referring to completely different qualities. And if you're going to define "Wagnerian rock" as "songs by Jim Steinman", it's not a musical (sub)genre at all -- it's just one songwriter's personal style. The article does, however, name several other supposed Wagnerian rock artists. Some of these artists have recorded concept albums, but for the most part their work consists of songs that are not part of any larger dramatic work. CKarnstein (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Meatloaf, Phil Spector, and Liabach? How can they possibly belong to the same genre? And where does Wagner fit in? There may be some common aspects to their work, but their is a lot more that separates them. You don't create a genre by taking one artist then desperately other artists that vaguely fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Declan (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tagged for deletion
This is an original-research essay that gives no citation, let alone an authoritative one, that the subject matter is an established subgenre among critics, musicologists or anyone else. "A genre created by Jim Steinman"? Please. This article is rock-fan writing, it is not encyclopedic, and for the sake of retaining the Music Genre project's credibility, this needs to be removed. It's ridiculous. --24.215.162.198 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

