15 December 2004


I've been previewing the next rock opera to the wife. I have eight of the songs somewhat playable and memorized. The piano playing is still a little shakey and the vocals are even more shakey because I sitll have to focus on the piano (and, well, it's my voice). Otherwise I'm ecstatic to be this close--the end of the year is the goal to get the last four songs (~22 minutes) playable and memorized. Go team.

She commented yesterday something along the lines that she's not sure how to listen to a rock opera--how to listen to a collection of songs that tells a story--because she's used to listening to just "pop" songs. I told her to think of it as a "musical" instead (ew). I would blame the confusion on sub-par playing and mumbled singing, but I had the same comment from a couple of other people--friends--on The Journalist. Strangers have ripped me a new a-hole for poor quality in this or that regard, but friends have understood the labor-of-love aspect so I'll discount any unlistenability as the source of the confusion.

One friend, after listening to The Journalist, said they didn't know how to judge it because they didn't know what a rock opera was. It may just be context. Listening to a song on the radio or from a CD or in a bar is just somehow different than having someone you know belt it out. And then there's the old joke of dihydrogen monoxide: labels can be as confusing as they are helpful.

[ posted by sstrader on 15 December 2004 at 5:16:02 PM in Music ]