rock opera

[Eric Tischler <EricT@ACA.ORG>]

the problem with rock opera's is that they limit the subject of the songs;
each song must further the plot and/or develop a finite number of
characters. Most writers of pop music choose the idiom because it
allows you to analyze a number of subjects in brief. If you want to
devote that much time to a single subject, you'd probably choose a more
rigorous format for such a discussion (i.e. a novel). Also, if you look
closely, most rock opera's should really be musicals. An opera has no
dialog, because every story aspect is clearly delineated in song.
Musicals (which are more closely related to pop music), include dialog,
becuase a catchy song can't always address the  necessities of a
narrative. Most rock operas don't really make a lot of sense 'til you read
the interviews; they need the dialog between characters to flesh out the
stories, because the songs don't do enough to forward the story. That's
probably why no one does rock opera's anymore. 
Having said that, my band is about to record, adn I've arrange a bunch of
unrealted songs so they do tell a story if you want one. It'll probably be
clearer than Tommy or the mighty Quad (although not better).
As for music being dead, "commercial conformity" hasn't killed those
bands that don't conform. Listen to college radio if you can. Go to small
record stores and ask to hear bands whose covers look interesting.
Magnet magazine is a great publication that writes about great new
bands, but the number of Who references per issue will surprise you.
You can find it at Tower. The Who are still my favorite band, but the 20
or thirty bands between the Who and, say, Bowie, Beatles, Moody
Blues, Zep  were all conceived in the 90s (in some cases, the late 80s).
There are bands that are that good. -E