Was opera the first form of concept album?

was opera the first form of concept album?

What did he mean by this?

"Concept" pieces have been around since the Renaissance, arguably even long before, since the ancient Greeks. Masses are "concept 'albums'"

Opera is more like the first films than the first concept albums

I hope this is someone pretending to be a rockist

Pretty sure Wagner wasn't concerned about "albums"

>Opera is more like the first films than the first concept albums
How the fuck is opera more like film than theater is?

The earliest "conceptual" music I can think of is Four Seasons by Vivaldi. Conceptual music doesn't require a plot, a theme is enough.

Where did he say that? Are you stupid? Both opera and theater can be early films.

He specifically said "first" you illiterate cum guzzler. Theater is an older art form than opera

Theater doesn't usually have constant music, more just in intermission and when you're heading to your seats. Opera and (most) film on the other hand has pretty much constant music.

Film is pretty much just filmed theater, very similair. Actors act, you absorb the story through their actions and words.

"albums" didn't become a thing until the 20th century

There was music in theater, but an occasional background score doesn't make film a musical art form akin to opera, or choreographed ballet. That's not its focus.


>Film is pretty much just filmed theater, very similair.

Why bring up your first argument if you're just going to contradict it?

The premise of this thread is "what was opera the first form of?"

imo its film. drama, music, popular appeal. All pretty much describe film.

I said "Opera is more like the first films than the first concept albums" and you started getting autistic about theater and ballet. comm sui, friendo.

There's no reason film can't be an art form equal of opera or ballet. Trained composers and choreographers still direct all the movements and music, and they have more time to perfect it during filming. In a live performace things can go wrong and you dont have time to really get your actors in the "zone" like some directors do, literally making their actors go through hell to get the best performance.

If film wasn't so obsessed with profits it would be a great art form, and in some places still is.

Opera and Theater are more visceral as you're right there in the theater with the performers, but they lack in the staging and scenery department compared to film.

>imo its film. drama, music, popular appeal.
>A film, also called a movie, motion picture, theatrical film or photoplay, is a series of still images which, when shown on a screen, creates the illusion of moving images due to the phi phenomenon.
Wow. Doesn't sound like they're actually the same artform at all and that there's only a tenuous link that you could find in most storytelling arts.

So filmed opera productions (quite common - the Met have been doing a lot of these) are a different art form to normal opera productions? ok...

Opera was the film of its day. Not really disputed.

If you concede that theater - which is an older art form than opera - shares more similarities with film, why would you refer to opera as the "first films"? It's a pretty straightforward point.

>There's no reason film can't be an art form equal of opera or ballet. Trained composers and choreographers still direct all the movements and music, and they have more time to perfect it during filming. In a live performace things can go wrong and you dont have time to really get your actors in the "zone" like some directors do, literally making their actors go through hell to get the best performance.
How does any of this pertain to anything I said? I wasn't making a quality distinction, I was making a distinction between forms of art that are heavily reliant on music, and forms where music is less essential to the experience.

The people who attended the opera were watching an opera. The people watching the film are watching a film. I don't think this is hard to understand and as a general rule, if you're watching moving pictures on a screen, it's probably a film.

What do you even mean by "the film of it's day"? What does that make opera nowadays? What about all the other story telling art forms like theatre and puppetry?

What's your problem? Opera was the musical of its day; theater was the film of its day. It's not difficult to get.

jesus christ what an absolute autist

no u

Couperin produced some harpsichord pieces where each one represents the cloak and personality of each dancer.
>tfw there's a piece called "les coucous benevoles" which means "benevolent cuckolds"

So if I'm watching a film production of an opera, I'm watching a film?
Interesting logic.

So if I'm watching a TV Series on a computer, I'm watching a computer, instead of a TV series.
And if I'm looking at an art work on a computer, I'm looking at a computer, not an art work.

The medium doesn't change whats being portrayed, contrary to your belief.

Musicals are films. And there are Theatrical musicals. Opera was the film of its day because it was extremely popular. These days film is far more popular than theater. Therefor Opera was the film of its day.

You guys are getting pretty autistic about this. I have an opinion, you clearly dont agree, but yet you're not convincing me to change my opinion. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree here

>Opera was the film of its day because it was extremely popular.
In a competitive field, this is the dumbest shit you've posted so far. Not only was theater more popular (depending on the period), but the criterion by which you judge the similarity of one medium to another isn't how popular they both are. Music is similar to literature because they're both popular?

>Musicals are films. And there are Theatrical musicals.
Operas are now films too. You made this point yourself. The similarities between operas and musicals (both feature stories told primarily through music) are much more salient than the apparent similarities between film and opera.

>So if I'm watching a film production of an opera, I'm watching a film?
Yeah. Opera has live actors and factors like the acoustics of the hall you're sitting in, etc. affect your viewing whereas when you're watching a film, camera angles, the recording/miking of the performance, the speakers/picture quality on your tv, etc. affect your viewing.

>So if I'm watching a TV Series on a computer, I'm watching a computer, instead of a TV series.
>And if I'm looking at an art work on a computer, I'm looking at a computer, not an art work.
No. Because "computer" isn't an artform. When you watch a film on an iphone it doesn't become an iphone and when you're watching a film projected onto a fat person's stomach it doesn't become a fat person's stomach. The same principle applies with watching things on a computer.
If you're watching Talking Head's Stop Making Sense on that fat person's stomach, you also aren't attending a concert, you're watching a film. It's a film of a concert but unless you are actually attending the concert, you aren't attending a concert.