Mitä pidit keikasta? Laulaja oli upea.

The closest word-for-word idea is something like What did you like/hold of the gig?, but that is not natural English.

In Finnish, Mitä pidit + elative form is a very common idiomatic way to ask for someone’s opinion about something. So:

• Mitä pidit keikasta? = What did you think of the gig?

It is asking for an opinion or impression, not only whether you liked it.

Mitä is the partitive form of mikä, meaning what.

In this expression, Finnish uses mitä as part of the fixed pattern:

• Mitä pidit... ? = What did you think of... ?

So it is best to learn Mitä pidit X:sta? as a whole question pattern.

Because the verb pitää in this meaning normally takes the elative case for the thing you like or are giving an opinion about:

• pitää jostakin = to like something
• here, in the opinion-question pattern, the same case appears:
  • keikasta = of/about/from the gig

So:

• keikka = gig
• keikasta = about/of the gig

This is why you do not see the basic dictionary form keikka here.

This is because of consonant gradation, a very common Finnish sound change.

When endings are added, kk often becomes k in some forms:

• keikka
• keikasta

So both things are happening at once:

1. the word gets the elative ending -sta
2. the stem changes from keikka- to keika-/keika- > keika? Actually in the final form you see keika- reflected as keikasta, with kk → k

For a learner, the practical thing to remember is simply:

• keikka → keikasta

Pidit is the past tense of pitää, in the 2nd person singular.

So it means:

• (sinä) pidit = you liked / you thought

In this sentence, because the event is over, the past tense is used:

• Mitä pidit keikasta? = What did you think of the gig?

Finnish often leaves out subject pronouns when they are already clear from the verb ending.

The ending -t in pidit already tells you the subject is sinä (you, singular).

So:

• pidit = you thought / you liked
• sinä pidit would also be possible, but usually sinä is unnecessary

This is very normal in Finnish.

Basically, pitää usually means to like when it is used with the elative case:

• Pidän musiikista. = I like music.

But in the question pattern:

• Mitä pidit keikasta?

the whole expression is best translated as:

• What did you think of the gig?

So the core verb is still pitää, but the full expression is more idiomatic than a simple word-for-word translation.

Here keikka means gig or live performance, especially a concert by a band or artist.

Depending on context, keikka can also mean other kinds of short jobs or work shifts, but in this sentence it clearly means a music performance.

Oli is the past tense, 3rd person singular form of olla (to be).

So:

• oli = was

That gives:

• Laulaja oli upea. = The singer was amazing.

Finnish does not have articles like a and the.

So laulaja can mean:

• a singer
• the singer

The context tells you which one is meant. Since the sentence is about a specific gig, the singer is the natural translation.

Because it is a predicate adjective after olla (to be), describing a singular subject:

• Laulaja = singular subject
• oli = was
• upea = amazing / wonderful / magnificent

So upea stays in its basic singular form here:

• Laulaja oli upea. = The singer was amazing.

Yes. Upea is a strong positive adjective and can mean things like:

• amazing
• wonderful
• magnificent
• gorgeous
• fantastic

In this sentence, amazing or wonderful fits best:

• Laulaja oli upea. = The singer was amazing.