Listening enlightened?
This article was a bit more confusing than the last few, since there were a lot of different terms that were thrown around, such as intertextuality and subjectivity. First, the discussion of musical meaning came about; then came talk of interpretation of this meaning, both in terms of direct imitation and subjective thought. The link between context and text seems to me a little unclear, as the author never explains the text as the music. The reasoned, fictive, subjective accounts of the reception of Haydn at the end of the article are an interesting leap into the eighteenth century mindset, using the philosophy described in the first half of the reading. The question that is pressing on my mind concerns the “multiplicity” of interpretations, which is discussed often: If listening became so subjective, so open to many interpretations, how was the concept of listening constrained before the enlightenment? Was free interpretation allowed previously? There isn’t much in the text that describes the previous state of musical interpretation, and I think this would be important in postulating that there was a change in the perception of the music of Haydn and Mozart.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Interpretation as a One-to-One Function (Simon, 4/28)
Mike, thank you for explaining what semiotic means. I was confused.
Korsyn's metaphor of nesting dolls that encapsulate each other reminded me of a very similar concept in real number analysis: that of boundedness. If some set, whether finite or infinite, is bounded, then there exists a disc that has all the points of the set interior to it. No matter how large one makes the disc, the infinite nature of human thought means that there is still more “stuff” outside of the disc than inside. This means, among other things, that no matter how broad a piece of music is, there exists some element outside the boundary, some idea that cannot be derived from the music. Is this a problem? Furthermore, if the set of possible interpretations is bounded, then no amount of patching or adding interpretations to the piece will ever encompass all ideas and feelings the human mind can evoke. Is this a problem?
Lowe throws around a few words that attempt to explain how music is distributed and processed. Expression, imitation, and suggestion are all used by 18th century thinkers to describe the role music plays in regard to nature. Are these simply gradients of relation? Or does each different term have some correspondence with a particular way music is processed by a listener?
Despite a disassociation with both the subject and musical content of “With Horns and With Hounds,” the merchant draws a quick connection between this folk melody and the Haydn's first movement. This, and the similar connection made by the noble, indicate that there may be stronger correlation between content and interpretation than previously argued. Certainly, the two attentive listeners feel different emotions towards the hunt, but it is the hunt that they both immediately focus on. Does this indicate a circumscribing or limitation of interpretation?
Korsyn's metaphor of nesting dolls that encapsulate each other reminded me of a very similar concept in real number analysis: that of boundedness. If some set, whether finite or infinite, is bounded, then there exists a disc that has all the points of the set interior to it. No matter how large one makes the disc, the infinite nature of human thought means that there is still more “stuff” outside of the disc than inside. This means, among other things, that no matter how broad a piece of music is, there exists some element outside the boundary, some idea that cannot be derived from the music. Is this a problem? Furthermore, if the set of possible interpretations is bounded, then no amount of patching or adding interpretations to the piece will ever encompass all ideas and feelings the human mind can evoke. Is this a problem?
Lowe throws around a few words that attempt to explain how music is distributed and processed. Expression, imitation, and suggestion are all used by 18th century thinkers to describe the role music plays in regard to nature. Are these simply gradients of relation? Or does each different term have some correspondence with a particular way music is processed by a listener?
Despite a disassociation with both the subject and musical content of “With Horns and With Hounds,” the merchant draws a quick connection between this folk melody and the Haydn's first movement. This, and the similar connection made by the noble, indicate that there may be stronger correlation between content and interpretation than previously argued. Certainly, the two attentive listeners feel different emotions towards the hunt, but it is the hunt that they both immediately focus on. Does this indicate a circumscribing or limitation of interpretation?
Yumi: Program music vs listeners' perception
The assertion that music should imitate proves that the eighteenth-century composers and philosophers considered instrumental music as program music. According to the Harvard Dictionary of Music, the program music “attempts to express or depict one or more nonmusical ideas, images, or events.” However, Lowe suggests that the “programs” evoked from music are not only created by composers, but listeners’ perception also has a big role in it. Taking the same motif, a brass fanfare for example, different listeners will have different reactions or emotions to it. Servants may feel inferiority and need to respect, on the contrary to a ruler who may feel admiration for himself by his people. As Lowe says, the hearings of musical works “are grounded in the social, cultural and political realities of listeners’ respective “privileged” historical listening contexts” (97) and thus, expressions “are in themselves neither natural nor artificial; they are but signs” (72). There’s so much a composer can express through compositional techniques, and everything is depends on listeners’ ability to think in his mind in order for music to have meaning.
Later in this article, Lowe takes three different fictional characters listening to Haydn symphony No. 88 for their first time to explain the centrality of intertextuality and subjectivity. Three different characters of different sex, status, and culture like/dislike the different parts of the symphony, and have different interpretations of the same measure. Lowe conclude this discourse by asserting that “to construct meaning freely assures the instrumental music of the late eighteenth century an ability to generate pleasure, aesthetic and otherwise, among its diversity of listeners.” (98)
1. Do you think the eighteenth-century music is program music? Although the concept of program music was not firmly established yet at that time, composers imitated nature through composition. On the contrary, do you still call it program music even though listeners perceive the music in different way than composers intended?
2. If all the instrumental music was subjective, how do you think composers strived to evoke a certain emotion? Do you think there was any technique composers used? or was it impossible to compose any music which everyone perceive it in the same way?
Later in this article, Lowe takes three different fictional characters listening to Haydn symphony No. 88 for their first time to explain the centrality of intertextuality and subjectivity. Three different characters of different sex, status, and culture like/dislike the different parts of the symphony, and have different interpretations of the same measure. Lowe conclude this discourse by asserting that “to construct meaning freely assures the instrumental music of the late eighteenth century an ability to generate pleasure, aesthetic and otherwise, among its diversity of listeners.” (98)
1. Do you think the eighteenth-century music is program music? Although the concept of program music was not firmly established yet at that time, composers imitated nature through composition. On the contrary, do you still call it program music even though listeners perceive the music in different way than composers intended?
2. If all the instrumental music was subjective, how do you think composers strived to evoke a certain emotion? Do you think there was any technique composers used? or was it impossible to compose any music which everyone perceive it in the same way?
Monday, April 27, 2009
While many theories have been developed about how music effects a listener’s emotions, these theories are inconclusive and only can provide a prospective to how this emotion might be evoked in a given work. It is interesting to consider, however, that these theories are not new ideas in music. While many of them may have been developed and recorded within a more modern period, it was an idea of the enlightenment to inspire this type of thought in philosophers and composers of the time. Wouldn’t it be likely that each of these composers had their own philosophies on how emotion in the listener is evoked? I think the answer to this is, likely. Perhaps it was one composer’s perspective that music could only transfer emotion by means of imitation. This composition would be inherently different from a composition of another composer, which embeds ideas of emotion portrayed though association (historical, social, etc…). It is also possible that some composers of this time period composed using both compositional techniques. Regardless of which compositional style was used, it is important to consider that many of the works composed in this era were written with a certain emotion, or certain emotions, in mind. As listeners, we of course are given the right to choose how we listen to a given work, but I also think it is a valid to state that listening in the 21st century is a very different endeavor than listening of the 18th century. This is primarily due to the fact that musical associations have greatly changed over the last 200+ years. For instance, a highly chromatic piece of music in the 18th century, which might have been seen as shocking in the 1700’s might seem very consonant and in turn, not provide the same effect to the listener of today. This dilemma brings up a much larger (and harder to answer) question pertaining to the emotions portrayed in music. Is it at all important to consider the original emotional intentions in a given piece of music? Because so much of musical interpretation is a subjective act, would taking these intentions into consideration be stripping music of natural ability to evoke a wide variety of emotions from listener to listener, or would this contextual intersubjectivity be a what the composer originally intended? How do you think the theorists discussed in our reading would have felt about these issues?
One argument of this article is that emotion in music is largely subjective. Do you believe this to be true? Why or why not?
In the 20th century, composers used many other means to portray emotions within music. What are some other techniques which can be used to portray emotion in music? If you don’t know any techniques used in the 20th century, invent some of your own ideas.
Most would argue that it was not a goal of music predating the enlightenment to evoke emotions in the listener though a composer’s music. Based on your own observations vs. what we have learned in this class, do you believe this to be true? Why would emotion by means of association not be a characteristic of pre-enlightened music?
One argument of this article is that emotion in music is largely subjective. Do you believe this to be true? Why or why not?
In the 20th century, composers used many other means to portray emotions within music. What are some other techniques which can be used to portray emotion in music? If you don’t know any techniques used in the 20th century, invent some of your own ideas.
Most would argue that it was not a goal of music predating the enlightenment to evoke emotions in the listener though a composer’s music. Based on your own observations vs. what we have learned in this class, do you believe this to be true? Why would emotion by means of association not be a characteristic of pre-enlightened music?
Historical Fiction (Mike)
The first thing that I did after reading this article was look up the word semiotics. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary semiotics is “a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics”. In the case of this article, Lowe uses the term semiotics to refer the arguments for and against the idea of specific meanings being written into the music of the late 18th century. In the first half of the article, Lowe proceeds through a history of the discussion on how music affects both the senses and the mind separately and in tandem. He begins with Du Bos who believes that nature must be imitated in order to arouse the passions in a listener. He also states that in order for music to be successfully imitative, it must arouse both the passions and the mind. He proceeds in this vein through Diderot who says that he never liked a symphony that he couldn’t interpret (invest with specific images) and Kant who suggested that we listen to music for physical rather than mental rewards. Finally, he references Umberto Eco who raises the complicated issue of what context should be considered and limited in the interpretation of a work and fervently states that a single correct interpretation of a work is a repressive idea. Though he also points out that saying a work doesn’t have a single correct interpretation does not mean that there are not incorrect interpretations. This all is intended to function as a safety measure against false interpretations that come out of uninformed discussion.
After this discussion, Lowe moves on to discuss how well-informed fiction can be a powerful tool in historical writing. In demonstration of this principle and the crux of the article, he combines this position with Eco’s and writes three historically informed though fictional accounts of a first (and only) hearing of Haydn’s op. 88 from the point of view of an Austrian nobleman, English banker, and a wealthy woman in post-revolutionary Paris who has recently come into her money. The accounts are interesting for many reasons, but the one that sticks out most to me is how the imitations in the music are interpreted by the listeners. When we have previously read and discussed the idea of imitation in 18th century music it has seemed like the imitation written into the music was interpreted in the same way by the majority of the audience present. This is true for the first tier of interpretation by the characters in that most of the time the characters interpret the musical signals to represent the same things, but in each case their experiences with the ideas that these musical ideas represent cause them to follow different thought processes and experience different emotions than their counterparts. In light of all of this discussion, all of the theories presented in the beginning of the article, and you previous experience with historical methods and 18th century imitation, does this fictionalized approach seem like a valid way to address imitation in 18th century music?
Lowe makes a big deal out of the fact that this will likely be the only time that her characters will hear this symphony performed, do you think that the practice of imitation is used in part to give the audience something to connect with since a deeper study of the music is inconvenient or all together impossible?
What do you think about the idea of Handel being part of the cannon of the Academy of Ancient music in the late 18th century?
After this discussion, Lowe moves on to discuss how well-informed fiction can be a powerful tool in historical writing. In demonstration of this principle and the crux of the article, he combines this position with Eco’s and writes three historically informed though fictional accounts of a first (and only) hearing of Haydn’s op. 88 from the point of view of an Austrian nobleman, English banker, and a wealthy woman in post-revolutionary Paris who has recently come into her money. The accounts are interesting for many reasons, but the one that sticks out most to me is how the imitations in the music are interpreted by the listeners. When we have previously read and discussed the idea of imitation in 18th century music it has seemed like the imitation written into the music was interpreted in the same way by the majority of the audience present. This is true for the first tier of interpretation by the characters in that most of the time the characters interpret the musical signals to represent the same things, but in each case their experiences with the ideas that these musical ideas represent cause them to follow different thought processes and experience different emotions than their counterparts. In light of all of this discussion, all of the theories presented in the beginning of the article, and you previous experience with historical methods and 18th century imitation, does this fictionalized approach seem like a valid way to address imitation in 18th century music?
Lowe makes a big deal out of the fact that this will likely be the only time that her characters will hear this symphony performed, do you think that the practice of imitation is used in part to give the audience something to connect with since a deeper study of the music is inconvenient or all together impossible?
What do you think about the idea of Handel being part of the cannon of the Academy of Ancient music in the late 18th century?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
I wonder what Dan Brown would have to say about this... (David)
Questions:
Is the cultural shift from masculine to feminine seen elsewhere in the arts of the seventeenth century (in literature, for example)?
What precipitated this gendered shift? Was it a byproduct of the surrounding culture, or did the musical shift catalyze a paradigm shift in the society? Were female composers the cause of the change? If no, why not?
Why is Germany, with such proximity to “romantic” (read: feminine) areas like France and Italy, the hotbed of masculine thought?
Given modern society’s preoccupation with affording equal rights of the sexes, are we currently living in a definitively masculine or feminine age? What sort of cultural clues justify your opinion?
Is the cultural shift from masculine to feminine seen elsewhere in the arts of the seventeenth century (in literature, for example)?
What precipitated this gendered shift? Was it a byproduct of the surrounding culture, or did the musical shift catalyze a paradigm shift in the society? Were female composers the cause of the change? If no, why not?
Why is Germany, with such proximity to “romantic” (read: feminine) areas like France and Italy, the hotbed of masculine thought?
Given modern society’s preoccupation with affording equal rights of the sexes, are we currently living in a definitively masculine or feminine age? What sort of cultural clues justify your opinion?
Masculinity in Music... Fact or Fable?! (by Simon)
In differentiating and defining masculinity and femininity, Humboldt and Rousseau have a bit of trouble deciding whether the words are a pair or a hierarchy. What particular phrasing brings this discrepancy to light? If possible, how could the definition be corrected so as to avoid the contradiction and yet convey the actual sentiments of the two writers? Similarly, Head notes that the tempo di minuetto of C.P.E. Bach's Concerto in c is masculinized with “prominent double basses, horns, and powerful stepwise bass lines.” If masculinity is such an important musical quality to 18th century composers, why is it so easy to add to an otherwise effeminate minuet? Here we see another conflict of definition: if all a piece needs to be masculinized is a more powerful bass line, the term is completely trivialized. What do musical critics of the era actually mean when they say a piece is effeminate, if their meaning is uniform at all? In light of our readings in both Burkholder and Le Guin, it is clear that French sentiments towards this issue vary wildly from their northern-Germany counterparts. How might the guests at the Salon de Parnasse respond to and resolve this quandary?
"A Gendered Discourse"
Head’s article brings our concept of music into a whole new realm: that of gendered discourse. We have previously discussed music as being defined by its time and place, even its method of performance, but not by such intangible and constantly evolving traits as class or gender. Head uses quotes and text from North-German critics to present the idea that the supposed gender of a piece was now as inherent a part of its identity as its form or function. In fact, the gender of certain musical styles, such a rondos and minuets, are in fact trapped within the boundaries of certain gender stereotypes because of their natural musical disposition.
If “the effeminate minuet” is a “transgression of symphonic unity and seriousness” (Head, 144), does the minuet have a place in music at all? What is Head implying composers thought about effeminate work as a whole?
Head places a great deal of emphasis upon “effeminate” versus “feminine”. What’s the difference? If effeminate work was a transgression, was feminine music one as well?
Head comments on how the sublime was associated more with masculine work than feminine. Does this imply worthiness upon masculine work rather than feminine? What does it imply as to where feminine work should be performed, how it should be discussed, etc?
How did C.P.E. Bach seem to skirt by this notion of impropriety even though he included a tempo di minuetto section in some of his work?
If “the effeminate minuet” is a “transgression of symphonic unity and seriousness” (Head, 144), does the minuet have a place in music at all? What is Head implying composers thought about effeminate work as a whole?
Head places a great deal of emphasis upon “effeminate” versus “feminine”. What’s the difference? If effeminate work was a transgression, was feminine music one as well?
Head comments on how the sublime was associated more with masculine work than feminine. Does this imply worthiness upon masculine work rather than feminine? What does it imply as to where feminine work should be performed, how it should be discussed, etc?
How did C.P.E. Bach seem to skirt by this notion of impropriety even though he included a tempo di minuetto section in some of his work?
Head reading
Mr. Head brings up an interesting discussion point when talking about gender and music of the 18th century. The gender boundaries/stereotypes are consistent with what we would assume: men are powerful, reasoned, authoritative, and objective; whereas women are pleasant, charming, soft and gentle. Head makes a reasonable connection between music and this gender binary (interesting bit about constructionist thought that wasn’t expanded upon), saying that the symphony is inherently masculine and the minuet and rondo are intrinsically feminine. Circular form, simple ideas, and light-hearted markings all led to the feminine labeling of the dance forms. There was more than one instance where I wasn’t sure if Head was talking about music or women, because he refers to the rondo as “the object of a critical male gaze” as if the rondo were physically a woman. There were even anatomical inferences that I made (maybe I read too far into the text: circularity and women? Not going there…). The issue of performance practice compared to the music was a good point too, so it would be difficult to analyze only the music, as is current practice. In this way, the primary source documents come in handy.
My discussion question veers slightly off topic from the feminine aspects of the reading into the masculine realm: if the feminine music, rondos and minuets, had functions like French courtly dances, what was the function of the “masculine” symphonic music? Sure the march is described as useful for parades and military events, but what of the rest? Why is it that the feminine music has apparent function whereas the masculine has none?
Cameron
"Like Beauty Spots on the Face of a Man" (Doug)
In this reading, music of the 18th century was critically analyzed to have many “characteristics,” which represented masculinity or effeminacy of that work. It is not unreasonable to view a march as “courageous, bold, and rousing” because of if the social functions it was used for and the characteristics these societal cues evoke (p. 15 par. 2). On the contrary, a minuet can be seen as very effeminate because it “is charming and agreeable” (among many other effeminate features) (p. 152 par. 1), which could be seen as uncharacteristic of masculinity. These characteristics of music of this time are interesting to view because their subconscious inclusion suggests many implications of a composer’s style and the interpretations of a particular work. In addition to these implications, more can be drawn outside of the work’s musical significance such as gender roles within society of that time. Likewise, I feel there are gender roles within modern music, which function in a similar way when comparing it to music of the 18th century. To exemplify this, consider your favorite Disney movies. Look at the leading characters of each sex and contemplate the music they each sing. Does each song sung have any implications to a specific gender when looking at that work’s style, meter, tempo, form, underlying feelings, or lyrics? How do the gender assignments to each piece affect the way it is heard by the audience and how do these gender roles affect the way the audience views the character as a whole? Are these gender roles significant to the integrity of the movie, or are they simply coincidental?
As stated in my opening statement, I believe there are still gender roles being assigned within modern music. What other musical examples can you think of where you see these roles being implied in today’s society?
While this analysis of 18th century music is intriguing, it is only someone’s interpretation. Do you agree with this notion of music having gender representation?
While gender roles in music of the 18th century imply a lot about the society of that time, it can also be view that the gender roles in society imply a lot of things about music in the 18th century. How would you look at minuets and marches through the lens of the 21st century? Can you see marches being effeminate and minuets being masculine in a way that was perhaps not perceived through a scope of the 18th century?
As stated in my opening statement, I believe there are still gender roles being assigned within modern music. What other musical examples can you think of where you see these roles being implied in today’s society?
While this analysis of 18th century music is intriguing, it is only someone’s interpretation. Do you agree with this notion of music having gender representation?
While gender roles in music of the 18th century imply a lot about the society of that time, it can also be view that the gender roles in society imply a lot of things about music in the 18th century. How would you look at minuets and marches through the lens of the 21st century? Can you see marches being effeminate and minuets being masculine in a way that was perhaps not perceived through a scope of the 18th century?
Music Can't Reproduce (unless it echoes)
Matthew Head's Essay on the use of gender in musical discourse struck me as much more poignant concerning the discovery of gender in the history of music rather than the discovery of music within the context of changing perceptions of gender. However, it cannot be denied that the two are inextricably linked in several ways. As the perceptions of beauty and sublimity gradually changed during the second half of the 18th century, the definitions of masculinity and effeminacy transformed as well. Masculinity and effeminacy, rather than being directly linked to male and female, became labels which spoke judgment upon the innate nature of a given object, practice or fashion.
So how were these judgments applied to music? 18th Century theorists believed that music had "character" of its own (152). Koch described this character as "those features and individual characteristics through which [a work] can be distinguished from another: meter, tempo, rhythm, and the type and use of melodic figures, the form, the accompaniment, the modulation, the style, the underlying feelings, the particular way in which they are expressed - all these contribute, now more, now less, to the particular character of a composition" (152). As Matthew Head suggests, the "underlying feelings" of a piece has especial significance in Koch's estimation. The various words and emotions used to describe such feelings often had masculine or effeminate implications. By cumulative effect, certain styles of music came to be viewed as either masculine (the march, symphony, concerto) or effeminate (minuet and rondo).
Let us remember that to say something is masculine or effeminate is not to say it is male or female. The former are merely descriptions of character traits which, in a given time period, are believed to be evident in one gender more than another. Thus to use masculinity and effeminacy to describe music does not ascribe gender to it, but rather uses commonly understood terminology in order to ease the comprehension of subtle nuance. However, the culture in which a given discourse takes place does influence the perception of one quality as superior to another (the masculine often taking that role). But this appears to me to be more of a discussion on the perception of gender rather than the comprehension of music.
Take the terminology away from the "gender debate" for a moment and it is not unlike the analogy of music to conversation (as discussed in LeGuin's essay). Music is neither a conversation nor is it gendered in any conceivably tangible way. C.P.E Bach's "manly" minuet in his Concerto in c, H. 474 is an example of the blurring of the lines in gender. As for conversation, harmony in music requires multiple voices to speak at once, which we know if reflected in spoken discourse would only lead to confusion, musically represented by harmony's opposite: dissonance. But although both analogies fall short at some point, their usefulness in musical discourse is not sacrificed in turn. We can debate about the misogynistic qualities of gendered musical conversation, but political correctness aside, the use of gendered terms is helpful (like conversational qualities) in discussing and understanding the "underlying feelings" of a given piece of music.
We all attribute qualities to the masculine and feminine (or effeminate?). The significance of the 18th century use of such terminology is indicative of the contemporary views of gender, but more significantly for our class, it reinforces the fact that music of the time was considered to have innate qualities of character.
1. The use of gender in musical discussion is something that I think is both dangerous to accept without question and thoughtless to discard without consideration. In what ways are the uses of gendered language accurate in their depiction of music? In what ways are they faulty?
2. Slightly off-topic: We have seen different philosophers compare music to both conversation and gender in an attempt to express its meaning and subtle qualities. This raised an interesting question for me: Is it possible to describe music accurately? Or are our analogies and terminology insufficient to capture its meaning, an over-intellectualization of beauty?
So how were these judgments applied to music? 18th Century theorists believed that music had "character" of its own (152). Koch described this character as "those features and individual characteristics through which [a work] can be distinguished from another: meter, tempo, rhythm, and the type and use of melodic figures, the form, the accompaniment, the modulation, the style, the underlying feelings, the particular way in which they are expressed - all these contribute, now more, now less, to the particular character of a composition" (152). As Matthew Head suggests, the "underlying feelings" of a piece has especial significance in Koch's estimation. The various words and emotions used to describe such feelings often had masculine or effeminate implications. By cumulative effect, certain styles of music came to be viewed as either masculine (the march, symphony, concerto) or effeminate (minuet and rondo).
Let us remember that to say something is masculine or effeminate is not to say it is male or female. The former are merely descriptions of character traits which, in a given time period, are believed to be evident in one gender more than another. Thus to use masculinity and effeminacy to describe music does not ascribe gender to it, but rather uses commonly understood terminology in order to ease the comprehension of subtle nuance. However, the culture in which a given discourse takes place does influence the perception of one quality as superior to another (the masculine often taking that role). But this appears to me to be more of a discussion on the perception of gender rather than the comprehension of music.
Take the terminology away from the "gender debate" for a moment and it is not unlike the analogy of music to conversation (as discussed in LeGuin's essay). Music is neither a conversation nor is it gendered in any conceivably tangible way. C.P.E Bach's "manly" minuet in his Concerto in c, H. 474 is an example of the blurring of the lines in gender. As for conversation, harmony in music requires multiple voices to speak at once, which we know if reflected in spoken discourse would only lead to confusion, musically represented by harmony's opposite: dissonance. But although both analogies fall short at some point, their usefulness in musical discourse is not sacrificed in turn. We can debate about the misogynistic qualities of gendered musical conversation, but political correctness aside, the use of gendered terms is helpful (like conversational qualities) in discussing and understanding the "underlying feelings" of a given piece of music.
We all attribute qualities to the masculine and feminine (or effeminate?). The significance of the 18th century use of such terminology is indicative of the contemporary views of gender, but more significantly for our class, it reinforces the fact that music of the time was considered to have innate qualities of character.
1. The use of gender in musical discussion is something that I think is both dangerous to accept without question and thoughtless to discard without consideration. In what ways are the uses of gendered language accurate in their depiction of music? In what ways are they faulty?
2. Slightly off-topic: We have seen different philosophers compare music to both conversation and gender in an attempt to express its meaning and subtle qualities. This raised an interesting question for me: Is it possible to describe music accurately? Or are our analogies and terminology insufficient to capture its meaning, an over-intellectualization of beauty?
Discourse of gender characterization of the Galant style
The article was basically a discourse of North German Theorist's on the perceptions masculinity and femininity of musical Genres of the 18th century. The main topic in particular is the subject of the "effeminine" Galant style replacing the masculine baroque style of music. In terms of composition, the definition of "feminine... indicates a predominant tenderness and gentleness..., [it] stirs the heart more than the imagination, it is more gently moving than inspiring" (167). Masculine on the other hand "indicates the character of an art work that distinguishes itself by a bold 'elan' [Enthusiastic vigor and liveliness], through power and vigor in the presentation of feelings, and through their violent agitations"(167). [note that there were new 19th century perceptions of the definition]. The terms associated with the masculine and feminine were also used to describe the music pieces themselves. This characterization of music was due in part that the perception of music can be alluded to the characteristics of a human (160).
The masculine genres of the 18th century were the fugue, concerto, and symphony and the feminine styles being the minuet and the rondo form. The masculine fugue declined in popularity and the concerto and symphony started to exhibit "feminine" traits. The minuets and rondos were considered feminine in particular because of their feminine content (i.e. short easy melodies, nice harmony, etc.). The rondo was also considered feminine not only in content but in form, as the refrain resembled a circle which is a commonly attributed to the female (159-160).
The topic was mainly based on the perceptions of men and not women. By this I mean that masculine was defined as characteristics that a man should have while "effeminine" characteristics were defined as characteristics that a man doesn't have instead of traits of the female. Later on of course this perception changed.
Questions?
In what ways do the styles do the Galant Styles resemble the "effeminine" characteristics that North German Theorists mention?
Although content of a musical piece is considered important as in categorizing an musical piece or genre as "feminine" or "masculine", form is also an important matter. How is it that form can be attributed to a gender classification? What is a "feminine form" with a "masculine content" or vise versa? How is the bach concerto an example of this duality?
The masculine genres of the 18th century were the fugue, concerto, and symphony and the feminine styles being the minuet and the rondo form. The masculine fugue declined in popularity and the concerto and symphony started to exhibit "feminine" traits. The minuets and rondos were considered feminine in particular because of their feminine content (i.e. short easy melodies, nice harmony, etc.). The rondo was also considered feminine not only in content but in form, as the refrain resembled a circle which is a commonly attributed to the female (159-160).
The topic was mainly based on the perceptions of men and not women. By this I mean that masculine was defined as characteristics that a man should have while "effeminine" characteristics were defined as characteristics that a man doesn't have instead of traits of the female. Later on of course this perception changed.
Questions?
In what ways do the styles do the Galant Styles resemble the "effeminine" characteristics that North German Theorists mention?
Although content of a musical piece is considered important as in categorizing an musical piece or genre as "feminine" or "masculine", form is also an important matter. How is it that form can be attributed to a gender classification? What is a "feminine form" with a "masculine content" or vise versa? How is the bach concerto an example of this duality?
C.P.E. carefully showing his effeminate side? (Mike)
Head begins the this article by pointing out that the mantle of ornament was being passed on from the men to become the domain of women in the later half of the 18th century. According to Head, this transition did not just affect the realm of fashion, but also extended its influence into the musical styles and criticisms of the time. Head focuses on two rifts created by this crossover. The first rift is the difference in opinion between the northern-Germans and the French with regard to the second rift that formed. The second rift is that of masculine vs. effeminate, (though not feminine), musics. This second division saw marches become a staple of the masculine school of music while minuets and rondos were accused of being more effeminate styles of composition. According to some theorists in the later half of the century, minuets were seen to be “foppish” and did not belong in places such as the symphony where they disrupted the very manly fast-slow-fast movement structure with something not at all serious and effeminate. However, there are exceptions, as Head points out when looking at C.P.E.’s Concerto in c H474. Not only does Bach “beef up” the minuet through the use of strong low voices which he saw to be masculine, but he contains the minuet within the confines of the first movement and thus surrounds and controls the minuet. As head says, the minuet is prevented from having the last word. It seems very much like the minuet is there to answer politely when asked a question, but not to drive its own point to conclusion. Thus, according to head, Bach saves the minuet from making the work as a whole overly effeminate. This seems like a lot of extra justification in order to point out that a compositional method or genre of music is displeasing. So my first question is, if this set of arguments is in fact about removing styles and genres that interfere with the writing of good music, why does the discussion need to be couched in a gendered frame of reference?
What do you think about how subjective many of the arguments are from the critics with regard to what is feminine and what is not (eg. Cramer’s argument that the theme of C.P.E.’s rondo is representing an enchanting maiden etc.) when Head clearly states that arguments like this are contingent on decisions made with regard to the performance of the theme?
What do you think of the sublime vs. beautiful argument made by Head on pg. 151?
What do you think about how subjective many of the arguments are from the critics with regard to what is feminine and what is not (eg. Cramer’s argument that the theme of C.P.E.’s rondo is representing an enchanting maiden etc.) when Head clearly states that arguments like this are contingent on decisions made with regard to the performance of the theme?
What do you think of the sublime vs. beautiful argument made by Head on pg. 151?
Head and the Genderization of music
In this article Mathew Head focuses on perception of music in the second half of the 18th Century with regard to how characteristics of gender were applied to discussions of music. Specifically, the minuet and rondo genres and gallant style were regarded as having effeminate characteristics such as frivolity, graciousness, tenderness, and delicacy. Masculine characteristics in music were seen in the march and “Bach’s fugal counterpoint,” possessing seriousness, profundity, sublimity, courageousness, and boldness (148). In mid-18th century Germany, from which Head finds such gender based descriptions, “feminine characteristics were discussed not with reference to women but effeminate males” (148). That is, the idea of femininity was more or less derived from what masculinity wasn’t. Eventually, an autonomous (but still negative) idea of femininity was solidified by “idealizing and equally restrictive adjectives” (148), as “German writers constructed an idealized femininity from notions of weakness, passivity, beauty, fragility,” and “obedience,” to name a few (149).
Head’s main point is that such descriptions reveal that music is “a gendered discourse” (144) guided by a value of the masculine over the feminine; this is reinforced by the modern scholarly obsession of form (masculine) over character (feminine) which “alerts us to the possible masculine bias of the discourse” (154). While he notes “the ramifications of beliefs about gender and genre in eighteenth century society and music making” are yet to be determined, it is apparent that the genderization of musical forms, styles, and individual pieces has been arbitrated by the higher value placed on masculine characteristics and resulted in the continuation of a style which openly champions the continuing masculine bias (166). The “ramifications” are not the preference of one style over another, but the preference of one gender over another based on the characteristics attached to them.
Why might the ideas of passivity, obedience, frivolity, and other traits associated with the minuet be viewed as negative in this time? What specific musical terms can we attach to these supposed traits?
Head claims the traits of femininity appear in the minuet, which was done away with in the second half of the 18th century, and the gallant style, which became increasingly more influential. While effeminacy in European culture was beginning to be abandoned later in the century, we see a contradiction in the simultaneous prevalence of the gallant style, which is characterized with effeminacy. Was the notion effeminacy really abandoned in the second half of the century, or were its supposed characteristics devalued in dress, manner, cultural discussion, etc, as its characteristics reemerged in new gallant style? There seems to be a paradox going on here – while men across Europe “put aside their frilled cuffs” and “skirted satin coats,” it seems the dominant gallant style picked them back up and continued such feminine traits as grace, passivity, and non-seriousness (143).
Head’s main point is that such descriptions reveal that music is “a gendered discourse” (144) guided by a value of the masculine over the feminine; this is reinforced by the modern scholarly obsession of form (masculine) over character (feminine) which “alerts us to the possible masculine bias of the discourse” (154). While he notes “the ramifications of beliefs about gender and genre in eighteenth century society and music making” are yet to be determined, it is apparent that the genderization of musical forms, styles, and individual pieces has been arbitrated by the higher value placed on masculine characteristics and resulted in the continuation of a style which openly champions the continuing masculine bias (166). The “ramifications” are not the preference of one style over another, but the preference of one gender over another based on the characteristics attached to them.
Why might the ideas of passivity, obedience, frivolity, and other traits associated with the minuet be viewed as negative in this time? What specific musical terms can we attach to these supposed traits?
Head claims the traits of femininity appear in the minuet, which was done away with in the second half of the 18th century, and the gallant style, which became increasingly more influential. While effeminacy in European culture was beginning to be abandoned later in the century, we see a contradiction in the simultaneous prevalence of the gallant style, which is characterized with effeminacy. Was the notion effeminacy really abandoned in the second half of the century, or were its supposed characteristics devalued in dress, manner, cultural discussion, etc, as its characteristics reemerged in new gallant style? There seems to be a paradox going on here – while men across Europe “put aside their frilled cuffs” and “skirted satin coats,” it seems the dominant gallant style picked them back up and continued such feminine traits as grace, passivity, and non-seriousness (143).
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Effeminate vs. Feminine: Gender Discourses in Music (Margaret)
We have already discussed the notion of music as a discourse on emotion and mood in terms of French and Italian opera, but what of the notion that music is a gendered discourse? Do the characteristics of the galant and empfindsam styles have corresponding masculine or feminine traits? Head believes so, especially in the music or northern Germany in the second half of the eighteenth century.
As we read in Johnson's "Opera as Social Duty," music is often a reflection of the times in which it was conceived. The same remains true for ideas about gender roles in music as discussed in the musical criticism of the time. The critical literature about north-German music is also a social commentary on the perceived differences between men and women. For example, the fact that gender commentary regarding effeminacy focused solely on men (i.e. a lack of masculinity) as opposed to women (i.e. femininity) is evidence of the social roles given to men and women of the day. In fact, by observing the terms used in music criticism we can track the evolution of a feminine identity in the late eighteenth century by noting that it isn't until 1786 that the word "feminine" is even included in German dictionaries (Head 148). According to Head, this eventual shift in focus from the man to the woman came about in response to the changing familial roles of men and women as men were spending more time at work and the women played a larger role in maintaining a peaceful home life for her husband and children.
These gender roles have a place in musical genres of the time as well, specifically in the assumed femininity of the rondo form and contrasting masculinity of the march. These ideas spread further into a separation of masculine and feminine traits or "affections" used to describe the music itself (Head 153). Head briefly discusses the difference between eighteenth century considerations of the overall character of a piece as compared to the more modern focus on the form alone. Embedded in this shift is a masculine attempt to be rid of the more emotional, subjective interpretations of a piece of music that could be seen as feminine. This suggests that these concepts of gender in music may still exist to some degree today.
Would you agree that this is true? If so, in what ways does it surface in modern music? If not, how would you describe the place of gender in modern music overall?
Did the music of women composers fail to be recognized because of its feminine character, or did the general fear of effeminacy keep women from getting a chance to try their hand at composition? (i.e. Was the keyboard thought of as a feminine instrument because women played it, or did women play it because it was the instrument deemed by men to be most appropriate for them to play? Or neither?)
How would you apply concepts of gender to our discussion of French versus Italian opera? Do these assumptions about masculinity and femininity fit in with the arguments made in Thursday's debate?
As we read in Johnson's "Opera as Social Duty," music is often a reflection of the times in which it was conceived. The same remains true for ideas about gender roles in music as discussed in the musical criticism of the time. The critical literature about north-German music is also a social commentary on the perceived differences between men and women. For example, the fact that gender commentary regarding effeminacy focused solely on men (i.e. a lack of masculinity) as opposed to women (i.e. femininity) is evidence of the social roles given to men and women of the day. In fact, by observing the terms used in music criticism we can track the evolution of a feminine identity in the late eighteenth century by noting that it isn't until 1786 that the word "feminine" is even included in German dictionaries (Head 148). According to Head, this eventual shift in focus from the man to the woman came about in response to the changing familial roles of men and women as men were spending more time at work and the women played a larger role in maintaining a peaceful home life for her husband and children.
These gender roles have a place in musical genres of the time as well, specifically in the assumed femininity of the rondo form and contrasting masculinity of the march. These ideas spread further into a separation of masculine and feminine traits or "affections" used to describe the music itself (Head 153). Head briefly discusses the difference between eighteenth century considerations of the overall character of a piece as compared to the more modern focus on the form alone. Embedded in this shift is a masculine attempt to be rid of the more emotional, subjective interpretations of a piece of music that could be seen as feminine. This suggests that these concepts of gender in music may still exist to some degree today.
Would you agree that this is true? If so, in what ways does it surface in modern music? If not, how would you describe the place of gender in modern music overall?
Did the music of women composers fail to be recognized because of its feminine character, or did the general fear of effeminacy keep women from getting a chance to try their hand at composition? (i.e. Was the keyboard thought of as a feminine instrument because women played it, or did women play it because it was the instrument deemed by men to be most appropriate for them to play? Or neither?)
How would you apply concepts of gender to our discussion of French versus Italian opera? Do these assumptions about masculinity and femininity fit in with the arguments made in Thursday's debate?
Gender Equality?? (Yumi)
In the second half of the eighteenth century, the effeminate aristocrats started to take “the guilt of the courtier” off, and to shift toward the natural masculine beauty. Around the same time Rousseau was criticizing the effeminacy of aristocrats, there was a movement against the new classical idioms in north Germany. Hiller describes the minuets in symphonies as beauty spots on the face of a man (144). The feminine characteristics of minuets weaken the unity of symphonies created by other three serious movements.
Head attributes this criticism to the widespread ambivalence to French culture in north Germany. In France, as we read in Le Guin’s article, women had more prominent roles both in family and society. For example, salonnières were the ones who directed discussions in the salon. The discourse on effeminacy was a response of north-German composers, where men were still dominating the nation, to the rampant French culture and the raise of the gallant style to protect their national identity.
While explaining why some specific genres are considered as feminine/masculine, Head also insists that being feminine is not bad, but mixing the works of opposite-gendered characteristics diminishs the unity of the work and thus ruin the magnificence. On the other hand, he insists the superiority of north-German manliness. By analyzing the Concerto by C. P. E Bach, he makes a point that the great composers such as C. P. E. Bach can compose works with a minuet, which is considered as a feminine genre, without eroding the masculine sublimity of the work.
Although Head writes this article mostly from north-German view point, he questions the tendency toward masculinization of the music today. Music scholars now only discuss genres in terms of musical forms. Indeed, the discourse on gender and genre, which underlie the eighteenth-century music and society, still deserves consideration.
Question:
1. In the beginning, Head writes that European aristocrats started to threw the effeminate decorations away. On the contrary, north Germans criticized that the music at that time took an effeminate turn. Why do you think this contradiction happened?
2. North-German composers argued that mixing the two opposite-gendered characteristics ruins the unity and thus push down the value of symphonies. On the contrary, now people claim the equality of the sexes, and eliminate sexual imbalance in business. Although the society and music are not the same, the tendency to avoid extreme bias can be seen anywhere in the world today. Considering this, what do you think about the idea that mixing the two opposite-gendered characteristics ruins the unity and thus push down the value of symphonies?
Head attributes this criticism to the widespread ambivalence to French culture in north Germany. In France, as we read in Le Guin’s article, women had more prominent roles both in family and society. For example, salonnières were the ones who directed discussions in the salon. The discourse on effeminacy was a response of north-German composers, where men were still dominating the nation, to the rampant French culture and the raise of the gallant style to protect their national identity.
While explaining why some specific genres are considered as feminine/masculine, Head also insists that being feminine is not bad, but mixing the works of opposite-gendered characteristics diminishs the unity of the work and thus ruin the magnificence. On the other hand, he insists the superiority of north-German manliness. By analyzing the Concerto by C. P. E Bach, he makes a point that the great composers such as C. P. E. Bach can compose works with a minuet, which is considered as a feminine genre, without eroding the masculine sublimity of the work.
Although Head writes this article mostly from north-German view point, he questions the tendency toward masculinization of the music today. Music scholars now only discuss genres in terms of musical forms. Indeed, the discourse on gender and genre, which underlie the eighteenth-century music and society, still deserves consideration.
Question:
1. In the beginning, Head writes that European aristocrats started to threw the effeminate decorations away. On the contrary, north Germans criticized that the music at that time took an effeminate turn. Why do you think this contradiction happened?
2. North-German composers argued that mixing the two opposite-gendered characteristics ruins the unity and thus push down the value of symphonies. On the contrary, now people claim the equality of the sexes, and eliminate sexual imbalance in business. Although the society and music are not the same, the tendency to avoid extreme bias can be seen anywhere in the world today. Considering this, what do you think about the idea that mixing the two opposite-gendered characteristics ruins the unity and thus push down the value of symphonies?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Wise words from CPE
"Don't go Bach to square one! Remember to read the comments you received on previous posts!"
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Johnson Response (David)
Johnson paints a picture of an opera different than what we know today. The “noise and bustle” (10) went unnoticed, and it was even “unfashionable to arrive at the opera on time” (9). It seems as though just as much action was happening on stage as was in the audience. It is ironic that the “most prestigious” and “most expensive” boxes in the theatre “provided a terrible view of the spectacle [which spectacle?]” (16). The layout of the theatre reflected the strata of social classes; there were pits where throngs of plebeians gathered, as well as the more coveted box seats, providing a barrier between lower and upper class.
During the eighteenth century, a sort of music transformation took place. For some reason, techniques such as word painting found a place in the operatic repertoire. It is also interesting to note that a change in how people think about music occurred as well. Rameau’s conviction that “the orchestra could convey emotional states” (49) is drastically different from his predecessor, Saint-Preux’s view that “music is nothing but a vain sound” (35). What precipitated this change? Who changed? Was it the performers, the performance, the music, the audience, the surrounding culture, the aristocracy, the promoters, the kings and queens...?
Questions:
What catalyzed the shift in viewpoint of opera as a social function, to opera as solemn art?
Is this shift reversible considering modern society and music? Could the opera become the rancorous event that it once was?
In the opening to his second chapter, Johnson quotes Saint-Preux: “Music is nothing but a vain sound that can flatter the ear and acts only indirectly on the soul…” (35). Is this how we, modern music listeners, view music? If not, what has changed in music so that we no longer view it as “vain sound”?
During the eighteenth century, a sort of music transformation took place. For some reason, techniques such as word painting found a place in the operatic repertoire. It is also interesting to note that a change in how people think about music occurred as well. Rameau’s conviction that “the orchestra could convey emotional states” (49) is drastically different from his predecessor, Saint-Preux’s view that “music is nothing but a vain sound” (35). What precipitated this change? Who changed? Was it the performers, the performance, the music, the audience, the surrounding culture, the aristocracy, the promoters, the kings and queens...?
Questions:
What catalyzed the shift in viewpoint of opera as a social function, to opera as solemn art?
Is this shift reversible considering modern society and music? Could the opera become the rancorous event that it once was?
In the opening to his second chapter, Johnson quotes Saint-Preux: “Music is nothing but a vain sound that can flatter the ear and acts only indirectly on the soul…” (35). Is this how we, modern music listeners, view music? If not, what has changed in music so that we no longer view it as “vain sound”?
Operas changing role in society- Johnson reading (Doug Fennig)
Mid 18th century opera was largely seen as a social haven as opposed to a place of musical excellence. Spectators went to the opera primarily to be seen and to see people. It was considered unfashionable to actually listen to or enjoy the music on stage. According to Johnson “The greatest pastime at the opera was conversation” (p. 28 par. 2). This informality continued for many years, but gradually there was a shift from opera being a social experience, to opera becoming a respected art form. This shift can be attributed to many different factors.
One of the reasons for the shift is because the way opera was socially perceived, depended largely on the way royally (and those with similar stature) viewed the art. Books used to describe etiquette, dating from the 18th century, actually highlighted the fact that if a commoner was “fortuned” enough to be placed next to a “person of quality” at a social event, it is ungraceful for that person to state there opinion before the nobility’s (p. 33 par. 3). Gradually, nobility’s role in opera began to weaken and change.
Another factor contributing to the move toward opera being respected by society concerns the emotion being portrayed in the opera’s music. An opera composer’s music in the mid 18th century was considered dry and stately, but later started using imitation to show expression. At this time music also became more “natural” instead of “artificial” and started “validating the truth of immediate feeling over the whims of opinion” (p.68 par. 4). These ideas were all new concepts, which in many ways began to make the music of operas more interesting and accessible to audiences.
Considering these facts and the many others presented in this article, decide the most important facet of change from mid to late 18th century opera. How did this change come about? What characteristics of this change helped spark the shift of opera as a social experience, to opera as a musical experience?
Questions
Opera and nobility had close ties in the mid 18th century. In many ways, the opera had an influence on who was important and who was not at this time. Likewise, nobility affected opera and its music at this same time. What are some influences nobility had on opera and its music of the mid 18th century?
Gluck played a large role in opera shifting from a completely social experience to a musical one. In what ways was Gluck’s musical style revolutionary to opera in the late 18th century?
The theater’s layout of 18th century opera was very important to its spectacle. In what ways did the layout of opera houses from this era affect the operas atmosphere? How did opera houses burning down change opera in the latter part of the 18th century?
One of the reasons for the shift is because the way opera was socially perceived, depended largely on the way royally (and those with similar stature) viewed the art. Books used to describe etiquette, dating from the 18th century, actually highlighted the fact that if a commoner was “fortuned” enough to be placed next to a “person of quality” at a social event, it is ungraceful for that person to state there opinion before the nobility’s (p. 33 par. 3). Gradually, nobility’s role in opera began to weaken and change.
Another factor contributing to the move toward opera being respected by society concerns the emotion being portrayed in the opera’s music. An opera composer’s music in the mid 18th century was considered dry and stately, but later started using imitation to show expression. At this time music also became more “natural” instead of “artificial” and started “validating the truth of immediate feeling over the whims of opinion” (p.68 par. 4). These ideas were all new concepts, which in many ways began to make the music of operas more interesting and accessible to audiences.
Considering these facts and the many others presented in this article, decide the most important facet of change from mid to late 18th century opera. How did this change come about? What characteristics of this change helped spark the shift of opera as a social experience, to opera as a musical experience?
Questions
Opera and nobility had close ties in the mid 18th century. In many ways, the opera had an influence on who was important and who was not at this time. Likewise, nobility affected opera and its music at this same time. What are some influences nobility had on opera and its music of the mid 18th century?
Gluck played a large role in opera shifting from a completely social experience to a musical one. In what ways was Gluck’s musical style revolutionary to opera in the late 18th century?
The theater’s layout of 18th century opera was very important to its spectacle. In what ways did the layout of opera houses from this era affect the operas atmosphere? How did opera houses burning down change opera in the latter part of the 18th century?
Opera as Social Duty (Yumi)
These three articles describe how opera changed in 18th century from two aspect, social and musical.
The first article Opera as Social Duty talks about the opera in 1750s. In the time, opera is the place for socialization. Aristocrats attended opera to show off their wealth and social power, to have secret gatherings, or to discuss and learn politics. Enjoying the work itself was the least interest for audiences. King also used operas for show his power map by making the free-admission list, and specters tried to show their nobility and respect to king by sympathizing the response to opera.
However, as shown in the third article Tears and the New Attentiveness, the social duty of opera changed in mid- to late-18th century. Although there were still people who attended opera for socialization, not for music, it was obvious that more audiences paid much more attention to operas. People started to enjoy the story and music as much as they were interested in observing others.
The second article Expression as Imitation is focused on music, especially on word-painting. People in mid 18th century considered music as an expression of poetry and nature (36). The majority of the era thought that music should express directly by using sound imitation or imitating the images. The paintings were mostly in melodic line. It was after 1770s when people started to think harmony as another tool to evoke scenes and feeling.
Question:
1. As I mentioned above, the attitude of audience changed a lot during the era. What made audiences to get interested in opera itself?
2. The third article tells that aristocrats, Marie Antoinette for instance, moved their box to the place where it’s harder to see opera and where a lot of civilians are. Why do you think?
3. The second article says that “the only expression was in imitation” and “paints everything, even those things that are only visible” (43). Do you think that only audible or visible thing can be imitated? For example, sadness is neither audible nor visible. Expressing sadness by using minor chord, is this imitation?
The first article Opera as Social Duty talks about the opera in 1750s. In the time, opera is the place for socialization. Aristocrats attended opera to show off their wealth and social power, to have secret gatherings, or to discuss and learn politics. Enjoying the work itself was the least interest for audiences. King also used operas for show his power map by making the free-admission list, and specters tried to show their nobility and respect to king by sympathizing the response to opera.
However, as shown in the third article Tears and the New Attentiveness, the social duty of opera changed in mid- to late-18th century. Although there were still people who attended opera for socialization, not for music, it was obvious that more audiences paid much more attention to operas. People started to enjoy the story and music as much as they were interested in observing others.
The second article Expression as Imitation is focused on music, especially on word-painting. People in mid 18th century considered music as an expression of poetry and nature (36). The majority of the era thought that music should express directly by using sound imitation or imitating the images. The paintings were mostly in melodic line. It was after 1770s when people started to think harmony as another tool to evoke scenes and feeling.
Question:
1. As I mentioned above, the attitude of audience changed a lot during the era. What made audiences to get interested in opera itself?
2. The third article tells that aristocrats, Marie Antoinette for instance, moved their box to the place where it’s harder to see opera and where a lot of civilians are. Why do you think?
3. The second article says that “the only expression was in imitation” and “paints everything, even those things that are only visible” (43). Do you think that only audible or visible thing can be imitated? For example, sadness is neither audible nor visible. Expressing sadness by using minor chord, is this imitation?
Johnson and Development in 18th Century Opera: From Debauchery to Attentiveness
Johnson’s three essays, “Opera as Social Duty”, “Expression as Imitation”, and “Tears and the New Attentiveness” describe in a linear progression how the experience of the French Opera changed from a visually-focused event, both in the sense of the Opera itself and the audience’s preoccupation with “see and be seen”, to a musically-centered experience.
Beginning with “Opera as Social Duty”, Johnson illustrates how the Opera was a social networking place, similar to today’s Facebook, I dare say, where the purpose of the visit was to gossip, find lovers, solidify social status, and stay on top of recent events. He says, “…eighteenth century audiences considered music little more than an agreeable ornament to a magnificent spectacle, in which they themselves played the principal part” (Johnson, 10). Even the space itself was designed for this social purpose; sacrifices in sight lines or sound quality were often made in the name of better privacy or publicity for the upper echelon of audience. There was constant noise, gossip, in some cases inappropriate touching, even fighting going on during the performance; the audience’s attention on the stage itself was extremely fleeting. Le Guin’s essay on conversation seems to me mute here; the audience both couldn’t and didn’t want to have any sort of conversation with the music at this point. The conversation that dominated their minds was the conversation going on in boxes and seats around them.
The main idea I took away from Johnson’s first essay was the fact that Opera was at first centered around visuals, be those visuals on stage or off. Because of the audience’s extreme fickleness, the Opera had to find ways in which to catch their eye and find their favor. Although an opera may run hours and hours long, one single moment of magnificence in dancing or machine-devised spectacle could win an audience permanently. The purpose of the Opera at this point was amusement and pleasure, which restricted composers and singers to the realm of music which pleased the audience. The nobility had to be catered to during these performances.
Signs of change in the function and form of opera were just beginning to occur, as seen in the elimination of references to royalty in prologue and the general feeling of the philosophes against the focus on “magic”. The stage was being set for the next development.
In “Expression as Imitation”, Johnson begins by saying “…their understanding of musical expression virtually excluded the possibility of profound musical experience” (Johnson 35).This builds off the fact that it was earlier thought that “music touched the senses but not the soul”. Johnson is proving that this in incorrect; it was the training of the audience that led them to that conclusion, not any actual lack of understanding. Building off of the audience’s visually-centered minds, composers were forced to limit their melodies and accompaniments to very defined, imagery-provoking music.
Then, everything shifted. In “Tears and the New Attentiveness”, the crazy days of the Opera are gone in favor of something milder and much more focused on music. The nobility slunk away to dark, more private corners and the audience began experiencing the simplicity and emotionally unguarded productions of Gluck. Crying became fashionable. The change was almost complete between visual event and emotional event.
It was no longer nobility that had to be catered to, but those knowledgeable about the music and the composer. And think about the fact that a battle between people like the Piccinnists and Gluskists even occurred! The fact that the exact form, values, and purpose of music was so important that fights broke out about it was a tremendous development in the progression of opera from mere social responsibility to powerful musical experience.
Johnson at one point states, “Before another way of hearing would be thinkable—and therefore fully experienced—both the language of aesthetics and style of musical composition would have to change” (Johnson, 41). My argument is that the experience of Opera and the music had to change as well. The shaping and nature of the performance itself is highly influential upon an individual’s experience with the music. This entire nature of the Opera had to change before the audience had the tools and setting in which to access the depth of Gluck’s music.
Questions:
Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Did the alterations in Court Life and the diminishing prominent presence of the nobility help facilitate the changes in the form and texture of the Opera itself, or visa versa?
Was the shift in focus from audience babble to material on stage a creation of the nobility, lower classes, or composers? How much did popular say still have influence upon whether to listen or not?
In reference to Le Guin’s essay on conversation, how did the conversation between the audience and the music change between the initial form of the Opera and the latter form? Just because audiences wept for Gluck, does that mean they’re experience with the music is changing at all or only their experience of the Opera itself?
Did the focus on imagery in music ever really leave, or simply take a back seat to other compositional nuances? At what point is it’s the audience’s turn to decide the importance of imagery-provoking music?
Beginning with “Opera as Social Duty”, Johnson illustrates how the Opera was a social networking place, similar to today’s Facebook, I dare say, where the purpose of the visit was to gossip, find lovers, solidify social status, and stay on top of recent events. He says, “…eighteenth century audiences considered music little more than an agreeable ornament to a magnificent spectacle, in which they themselves played the principal part” (Johnson, 10). Even the space itself was designed for this social purpose; sacrifices in sight lines or sound quality were often made in the name of better privacy or publicity for the upper echelon of audience. There was constant noise, gossip, in some cases inappropriate touching, even fighting going on during the performance; the audience’s attention on the stage itself was extremely fleeting. Le Guin’s essay on conversation seems to me mute here; the audience both couldn’t and didn’t want to have any sort of conversation with the music at this point. The conversation that dominated their minds was the conversation going on in boxes and seats around them.
The main idea I took away from Johnson’s first essay was the fact that Opera was at first centered around visuals, be those visuals on stage or off. Because of the audience’s extreme fickleness, the Opera had to find ways in which to catch their eye and find their favor. Although an opera may run hours and hours long, one single moment of magnificence in dancing or machine-devised spectacle could win an audience permanently. The purpose of the Opera at this point was amusement and pleasure, which restricted composers and singers to the realm of music which pleased the audience. The nobility had to be catered to during these performances.
Signs of change in the function and form of opera were just beginning to occur, as seen in the elimination of references to royalty in prologue and the general feeling of the philosophes against the focus on “magic”. The stage was being set for the next development.
In “Expression as Imitation”, Johnson begins by saying “…their understanding of musical expression virtually excluded the possibility of profound musical experience” (Johnson 35).This builds off the fact that it was earlier thought that “music touched the senses but not the soul”. Johnson is proving that this in incorrect; it was the training of the audience that led them to that conclusion, not any actual lack of understanding. Building off of the audience’s visually-centered minds, composers were forced to limit their melodies and accompaniments to very defined, imagery-provoking music.
Then, everything shifted. In “Tears and the New Attentiveness”, the crazy days of the Opera are gone in favor of something milder and much more focused on music. The nobility slunk away to dark, more private corners and the audience began experiencing the simplicity and emotionally unguarded productions of Gluck. Crying became fashionable. The change was almost complete between visual event and emotional event.
It was no longer nobility that had to be catered to, but those knowledgeable about the music and the composer. And think about the fact that a battle between people like the Piccinnists and Gluskists even occurred! The fact that the exact form, values, and purpose of music was so important that fights broke out about it was a tremendous development in the progression of opera from mere social responsibility to powerful musical experience.
Johnson at one point states, “Before another way of hearing would be thinkable—and therefore fully experienced—both the language of aesthetics and style of musical composition would have to change” (Johnson, 41). My argument is that the experience of Opera and the music had to change as well. The shaping and nature of the performance itself is highly influential upon an individual’s experience with the music. This entire nature of the Opera had to change before the audience had the tools and setting in which to access the depth of Gluck’s music.
Questions:
Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Did the alterations in Court Life and the diminishing prominent presence of the nobility help facilitate the changes in the form and texture of the Opera itself, or visa versa?
Was the shift in focus from audience babble to material on stage a creation of the nobility, lower classes, or composers? How much did popular say still have influence upon whether to listen or not?
In reference to Le Guin’s essay on conversation, how did the conversation between the audience and the music change between the initial form of the Opera and the latter form? Just because audiences wept for Gluck, does that mean they’re experience with the music is changing at all or only their experience of the Opera itself?
Did the focus on imagery in music ever really leave, or simply take a back seat to other compositional nuances? At what point is it’s the audience’s turn to decide the importance of imagery-provoking music?
Johnson (Sam Steere)
Johnson's writing reveals to us, his readers, the drastically different experience afforded to opera-goers of the 18th century from our own polished performances of today. Unlike our modern perspective, opera houses of the time were places for the public display of social status and served as a forum for the interaction of individuals within a variety of social classes (although predominantly the aristocracy). This "interaction" was not only in the form of conversation, but often found its primary expression in observation. The supremacy of the social function allowed the now sacred silence of the performance hall to be transgressed through conversation, constant movement, and in some instances, singing and dancing. The Opera seems to have maintained a constant atmosphere of judgment and comparison by no means limited to a critique of the performance itself. More significant was the critique of people: their posture and reactions, their gentility, and the presence of either honorable or scandalous companions. One need not even have been attentive to the opera itself (what a ridiculous idea!) in order to praise or condemn it. Just be sure to align your critique with the opinion of respectable individuals.
Even if an 18th century music connoisseur were to, against all rules of etiquette, listen attentively to the opera, the presuppositions that would direct his/her listening were far different than the modern perspective. Music was not considered to have any emotional value in and of itself. 18th century listeners would instead listen to music through the filter or lens of imitation. Though music was not emotional itself (in their estimation), it could imitate realities (birds, battles, storms, etc.) which in turn would evoke the desired emotion. This concept of imitation became so deeply rooted in the French perception of music that the attributed meanings behind various lines and phrases became rather obsessive to our modern ear. Every note or movement could have a designated action or reality assigned to it. The extent to which some observers went to establish these metaphorical relationships seems almost laughable now, but the connection between music and reality was what began the process of understanding music as we do in the modern era: as having innate, tangible and influential emotion as a part of its very essence.
1. What in our modern age is similar to the social dynamic of 18th Century opera? (ex. We may not talk during performances, but attending is a sign of wealth and status to an extent.)
2. Does the concept of specific analogous comparison in music (as the Parisians used to do) detract from or add to the experience of the art form? We see the emotion as innate, but could this idea of perceiving imitation lend itself to greater appreciation?
Even if an 18th century music connoisseur were to, against all rules of etiquette, listen attentively to the opera, the presuppositions that would direct his/her listening were far different than the modern perspective. Music was not considered to have any emotional value in and of itself. 18th century listeners would instead listen to music through the filter or lens of imitation. Though music was not emotional itself (in their estimation), it could imitate realities (birds, battles, storms, etc.) which in turn would evoke the desired emotion. This concept of imitation became so deeply rooted in the French perception of music that the attributed meanings behind various lines and phrases became rather obsessive to our modern ear. Every note or movement could have a designated action or reality assigned to it. The extent to which some observers went to establish these metaphorical relationships seems almost laughable now, but the connection between music and reality was what began the process of understanding music as we do in the modern era: as having innate, tangible and influential emotion as a part of its very essence.
1. What in our modern age is similar to the social dynamic of 18th Century opera? (ex. We may not talk during performances, but attending is a sign of wealth and status to an extent.)
2. Does the concept of specific analogous comparison in music (as the Parisians used to do) detract from or add to the experience of the art form? We see the emotion as innate, but could this idea of perceiving imitation lend itself to greater appreciation?
Opera Society Readings
Contrary to modern perceptions, the Opera was not a place for the arts but a haven for social interactions. The opera in the 18th century, was more of a social event in which the purpose was to display ones social status, a place to hold meetings, and a haven for people to meet new people.
Operas were loud, noisy, and in many cases crowded. The perception of music was that "eighteenth-century audiences considered music little more than an agreeable ornament to a magnificent spectacle [conversations], in which they themselves played the principal part" (10). People hardly paid attention to the music or the performances and were mostly interacting with one another. There would be separate rooms (or boxes) for important officials that would be designated as special rooms for them that everybody could see.
The concept of the opera of being a place of social interaction can be actually seen from the design of the opera building. The opera had horrible lighting in which people could not see the stage in most cases. However, the lighting did shine and show certain audience members on purpose for the sole fact of making them seen and known by everybody. Also the usage of "boxes" or rooms designated for VIP members only were used as meeting rooms for discussion and as a special room that was to stand out from the rest of the normal commoners.
The theatricals of an opera was mainly visual than aural. Operas were composed heavily of dances and props. As the audiences reaction was "more amusement than absorption" (23). There would be large magnificent sets made, costumes, and props that caught the eyes of the audience members. This indulgence in visual displays is a clear indicator that "French taste in the middle years of the 18th century increasingly favored display over dramatic intensity" (26).
It wasn't until later on in the 18th century that the opera became a place where it was viewed as an art. This was in part due to the decline of the high upper classes influence on the arts and due in part to other factors such as the rise of talented musicians. As music became more artistic, people became more interested in it. Gluck composed pieces that literally caused audience members to cry thus grabbing their attention better than before. As New talent emerged, people actually "begun applauding during the music to show their approval and cheering for arias to be repeated" (69), something that was never done before.
Individuals perception of music of the opera changed greatly to help facilitate the popularity of opera itself and not the opera house. Many people had perceptions that one should not be too interested in the opera itself and that it was socially unacceptable to do so (31). Also the perception of good music and the development of taste was based on how the noblemen and the uper class viewed the music, where the rest of the commoners just followed their perception. This format of music stayed for quite about while but later on was not enforced as much as individuals started to develop their own opinions of music.
With all the problems and issues that the opera house had, what was the point of having it if there were other social events that could of taken place at better settings?Why was the social aspect of the opera diminished in influence?
Reflections on the Social Role of Eighteenth-Century Opera (Margaret)
“Opera as Social Duty,” “Expression as Imitation,” and “Tears and the New Attentiveness” from Listening in Paris by James Johnson
Margaret Wehr
4.7.09
James Johnson’s Listening in Paris explores the role of opera in eighteenth-century France, revealing that opera had a much more prevalent social function than a musical one, especially during the middle of the century. According to Johnson, audiences in this time period thought of music as “little more than an agreeable ornament to a magnificent spectacle, in which they themselves played the principal part” (James 10). He then goes on to highlight aspects of opera at the time and study the various changes in audience attitudes toward it beginning around the 1770s with the emergence of Rameau and Gluck’s operas.
In 1750, attending an opera provided a very concentrated display of social hierarchies as well as tips on current trends in fashion and taste. In direct contrast with LeGuin’s concentration on the importance of a musical conversation in “A Visit to the Salon de Parnasse,” opera-goers in the mid-eighteenth century were far more invested in their own conversations than in the opera itself, often speaking or yelling over the music or leaving to take walks outside in the middle of the performance. Listening intently to the music of the opera was seen as “bourgeois” and in poor taste. These behaviors arose from the social structure at the time and the etiquette endorsed by the members of nobility who were present, and whose opinions on the music were considered more valid than those of any other individuals in the crowd. Thus, the operas themselves were judged “by groups rather than by individuals” (James 33).
Perhaps most interesting about audience attitudes toward music at the time is the weight of the text and word painting involved in public opinion of a work. “To them, music presented a clear picture in a one-to-one correspondence of tone to image or it had on expression at all” (James 36). This put an excessive amount of importance on musical imitation of real life sounds as opposed to musical evocation of human emotion, which was not thought possible at the time. Therefore, the recitatives and airs automatically assumed the focus of the opera, and the opera’s popularity among audiences directly correlated with the ability of audience members to hear certain things in the music.
Then came Rameau, who used unexpected chromaticism, polyphony, and modulations to convey emotion separate from the text, causing a bit of an uproar. However, public opinion on this subject had begun to change by the 1770s with an increasing interest in artistic and expressive elements, not just the spectacle for its own sake.
What elements of late-eighteenth century society contributed to this major shift in thinking about and experiencing music?
What would Rousseau have to say about the idea of a musical conversation, were he to attend the Salon de Parnasse? How would a musical conversation change if it were thought incapable of portraying emotion?
Margaret Wehr
4.7.09
James Johnson’s Listening in Paris explores the role of opera in eighteenth-century France, revealing that opera had a much more prevalent social function than a musical one, especially during the middle of the century. According to Johnson, audiences in this time period thought of music as “little more than an agreeable ornament to a magnificent spectacle, in which they themselves played the principal part” (James 10). He then goes on to highlight aspects of opera at the time and study the various changes in audience attitudes toward it beginning around the 1770s with the emergence of Rameau and Gluck’s operas.
In 1750, attending an opera provided a very concentrated display of social hierarchies as well as tips on current trends in fashion and taste. In direct contrast with LeGuin’s concentration on the importance of a musical conversation in “A Visit to the Salon de Parnasse,” opera-goers in the mid-eighteenth century were far more invested in their own conversations than in the opera itself, often speaking or yelling over the music or leaving to take walks outside in the middle of the performance. Listening intently to the music of the opera was seen as “bourgeois” and in poor taste. These behaviors arose from the social structure at the time and the etiquette endorsed by the members of nobility who were present, and whose opinions on the music were considered more valid than those of any other individuals in the crowd. Thus, the operas themselves were judged “by groups rather than by individuals” (James 33).
Perhaps most interesting about audience attitudes toward music at the time is the weight of the text and word painting involved in public opinion of a work. “To them, music presented a clear picture in a one-to-one correspondence of tone to image or it had on expression at all” (James 36). This put an excessive amount of importance on musical imitation of real life sounds as opposed to musical evocation of human emotion, which was not thought possible at the time. Therefore, the recitatives and airs automatically assumed the focus of the opera, and the opera’s popularity among audiences directly correlated with the ability of audience members to hear certain things in the music.
Then came Rameau, who used unexpected chromaticism, polyphony, and modulations to convey emotion separate from the text, causing a bit of an uproar. However, public opinion on this subject had begun to change by the 1770s with an increasing interest in artistic and expressive elements, not just the spectacle for its own sake.
What elements of late-eighteenth century society contributed to this major shift in thinking about and experiencing music?
What would Rousseau have to say about the idea of a musical conversation, were he to attend the Salon de Parnasse? How would a musical conversation change if it were thought incapable of portraying emotion?
Johnson readings (Cameron)
The section of the Johnson reading that spoke to me the most was the part entitled “Expression as Imitation”. The first chapter of the series explains the social posturing that happens as part of the spectacle that was the Opéra, but I really appreciated the attempted explanations of music in the written word. The first point that jumped out at me was the fact that in the French opera, the “music was the slave of poetry” and did not have much expression of its own. The first intellectual (this was the Enlightenment!!) that Johnson discusses is Charles Batteux, who states “If we cannot understand the sense of the expressions music contains, it has no wealth for us.” Both Rousseau and Diderot, also figures of the Age of Reason, said that music imitates nature and simple expressions, but only so far. (Knox owns a copy of the Diderot Encyclopédie, which would be interesting to look up, as it was referenced.) I love the Enlightenment process of trying to analyze everything, but why the “hieroglyphs” of Diderot or the similarly awkward music-less explanations of Rousseau? This, even during operas that were not the focus of the evening out? And what were they referring to when they discussed “imitation”?
I suppose that the newer styles of music changed the approach to music, as did the changing architecture. (Interesting fact: The first theatre with an orchestra pit was built in Besançon, France in 1770’s by Claude LeDoux). Music didn’t change suddenly, so did the audience reaction/attention evolve with the changes? More specifically, was it the really angry-sounding attacks within Gluck’s opera that made people stop and listen? Gluck is just the first example that’s brought up, so were there others?
I suppose that the newer styles of music changed the approach to music, as did the changing architecture. (Interesting fact: The first theatre with an orchestra pit was built in Besançon, France in 1770’s by Claude LeDoux). Music didn’t change suddenly, so did the audience reaction/attention evolve with the changes? More specifically, was it the really angry-sounding attacks within Gluck’s opera that made people stop and listen? Gluck is just the first example that’s brought up, so were there others?
Monday, April 6, 2009
Johnson (Mike)
In the opening section of Johnson’s writing, it is made clear that the opera was not a place that one went to enjoy a show. The members of the audience were there to do anything but. Some of the more popular activities involved being seen, seeing, speaking of the latest fashions, speaking of the latest intrigues among the privileged classes, commenting on the latest military actions and the list goes on. During the first half of the 18th century, the king was in charge of society and the opera house was an extension of his domain. In essence the music and action on stage were merely a backdrop to the societal drama being played out in the boxes, corridors and balconies of the theatre.
However, it is interesting to note that while many art forms remain aloof and removed from the outside world to some degree, the French opera was very much an organization that paralleled events in France. As the position of the king began to lose its luster and power toward the later half of the century, the opera moved in parallel. Aristocratic society began to lose its hold on Paris as the class structure began to degrade. This degradation of class structure saw the transformation of the opera from a place to be seen and conduct social business to a place of quiet attention and contemplation with regard to the drama taking place on stage. As the country began to make a move from a hereditary aristocracy grounded only in tradition to a meritocracy founded on rational thought and the ability to contribute to society so did the opera begin to move from empty farces and sugar coated moralizing plays to legitimate dramas that evoked reactions from and increasingly attentive audience. This audience was also being encouraged to form their own opinions of the works they were viewing in the later half of the century instead of modeling their opinions on those of important societal figures.
In a climate where the only real point of attending the opera was the social interaction and the music merely played a background role, why would so many people attend the opera when there are far less expensive and rigorous places to be seen in society?
I find it interesting that early in the century, audiences insisted that music itself could not evoke emotions. However, if they were able to attach specific images to certain parts of the music they could experience emotional reactions to the music. Why was this idea of imitation so earnestly clung to when people like Rousseau were so close to merely declaring emotional reaction as a possible result of hearing music?
Rameau is cited by Johnson as being the next great innovator since Lully. Interestingly enough, Lully was still kept in the repertoire during Rameau’s career. Why did it take until Gluck’s era for Lully to finally be laid to rest?
However, it is interesting to note that while many art forms remain aloof and removed from the outside world to some degree, the French opera was very much an organization that paralleled events in France. As the position of the king began to lose its luster and power toward the later half of the century, the opera moved in parallel. Aristocratic society began to lose its hold on Paris as the class structure began to degrade. This degradation of class structure saw the transformation of the opera from a place to be seen and conduct social business to a place of quiet attention and contemplation with regard to the drama taking place on stage. As the country began to make a move from a hereditary aristocracy grounded only in tradition to a meritocracy founded on rational thought and the ability to contribute to society so did the opera begin to move from empty farces and sugar coated moralizing plays to legitimate dramas that evoked reactions from and increasingly attentive audience. This audience was also being encouraged to form their own opinions of the works they were viewing in the later half of the century instead of modeling their opinions on those of important societal figures.
In a climate where the only real point of attending the opera was the social interaction and the music merely played a background role, why would so many people attend the opera when there are far less expensive and rigorous places to be seen in society?
I find it interesting that early in the century, audiences insisted that music itself could not evoke emotions. However, if they were able to attach specific images to certain parts of the music they could experience emotional reactions to the music. Why was this idea of imitation so earnestly clung to when people like Rousseau were so close to merely declaring emotional reaction as a possible result of hearing music?
Rameau is cited by Johnson as being the next great innovator since Lully. Interestingly enough, Lully was still kept in the repertoire during Rameau’s career. Why did it take until Gluck’s era for Lully to finally be laid to rest?
Post on Le Guin
Madame De Stael brought up an interesting point during the discussion, saying that “the kind of pleasure produced by an animated conversation does not precisely consist in the subject of that conversation.” The musicians were friends, family, and of varying degrees of musical ability, and the music, a Haydn sonata in this case, just seemed to happen. The music itself seems to become part of the conversation between friends and acquaintances, this is clear, but the thing I wonder is how the musicians stop and become part of the verbal conversation. I personally like to finish a piece of music when I start it, but maybe that is one of the differences in function/taste/understanding/perspective à propos de music now and then. The context of playing the music is covered too, which is where I take issue. I gleaned from the article that completeness and virtuosity are not integral to the music, as is the fact that the music made and discussed. The enjoyment of the piece of music, or the conversation, didn’t hinge on the music being made well or continuously. Along those same lines, I really enjoyed the interplay and analogy of music and conversation, especially the use of the terms entretien and conversation. Being a French speaker and amateur linguist (as were the characters in the reading, I think), I enjoy finding shades of meaning between words, and they explain this distinction very well. Music in the time period shown seems to make the metaphor about conversation less of a literary/conversational device and more of an inextricable fact: they are the same. Is this what the characters are trying to evoke? Is the metaphor useless as such?
Johnson, 4/08, Simon
The aristocracy was one of the biggest influences on the modus operandi of the Versailles opera house, and as the king’s and his nobles’ attention shifted away, the landscape changed accordingly. How did the Crown’s attention (or lack thereof) affect the development of opera? Was it for better, or for worse?
From our modern viewpoint, the opera house described by Johnson seems, at best, inefficient and frustrating, and at worst, disgusting and downright dangerous. The primary objective of the audience is to see and be seen; poor lighting for the orchestra and constant side conversation in the parterre and the boxes did little to diminish the audiences enjoyment. This essay makes it ever clearer that, as Diderot says, “there’s been quite a shift” in objective for the opera. But if this is the case, why is the music composed for those opera houses so relevant today? Why is the study of music theory focused around an era in which music was employed primarily as background noise?
From our modern viewpoint, the opera house described by Johnson seems, at best, inefficient and frustrating, and at worst, disgusting and downright dangerous. The primary objective of the audience is to see and be seen; poor lighting for the orchestra and constant side conversation in the parterre and the boxes did little to diminish the audiences enjoyment. This essay makes it ever clearer that, as Diderot says, “there’s been quite a shift” in objective for the opera. But if this is the case, why is the music composed for those opera houses so relevant today? Why is the study of music theory focused around an era in which music was employed primarily as background noise?
Opera as Social Duty
In this text the author paints a picture of French social values in the mid 18th century by describing musical life in regard to the opera. The main aspects of the opera that reveal French values include the behaviors of the audience, the setup of the theatre, and what was most valued in performance.
The behaviors of the audience include a concern with appearances and manners; as we will see in the setup of the opera house, the most important thing in attending the opera was being seen. It was the meeting place of the richest nobility, seated in reserved boxes in "prime" locations, flanked by the outer edges of upper-middle class society crammed into the parterre and the higher box-seats. Many were equipped with lorgnettes, studying in detail the idosyncracies and nuances of individual's interactions with each other. The purpose of scrutiny was the judgement of etiquette. Established by noble tradition, Johnson suggests that etiquette at this time stemmed from Cardinal Richelieu's "attempts in the 17th century to ensure respectful behavior towards the monarch from an unruly aristocracy." In this way Johnson suggests social behavior at the opera becomes a testament of devotion to the ruling power structure.
The setup of the opera house reflects the social desire to be seen as well as the structure of power and influence at the time. "Not a clear view of the opera was of paramount importance in any way: to be seen was a higher priority." To attend was "social power displayed," as signified by the visibility of one's seat in the house. Moreover, the most visible boxes were the most ornate and the most expensive, signifying the wealth of their occupiers.
The performance itself was not treated with nearly as much attention as modern audiences would pay. As aforementioned, people were there mainly to be seen and thus the music was "little more than an agreeable ornament to a magnificent spectacle, in which they themselves played the principle part." Audiences were more amused by than absorbed into the performance, and "attentivenesss was a social faux pas."
Through outlining these main aspects of the opera, Johnson exposes that the existing social structure in France was fueled by reverence for the monarchy. The reigning etiquette was derived from the nobility: "from the fleur-de-lys on the proscenium to the personalities on display, you saw reminders of Versailles." The setup of the theatre supported this notion by providing a lense on the rest of society and an opportunity to judge said etiquette. The opera experience provides a glimpse into the suffocating sociopolitical structure of the time, setting a backdrop to the changes in society and music that were to follow as the enlightenment continued and French Revolution neared.
The behaviors of the audience include a concern with appearances and manners; as we will see in the setup of the opera house, the most important thing in attending the opera was being seen. It was the meeting place of the richest nobility, seated in reserved boxes in "prime" locations, flanked by the outer edges of upper-middle class society crammed into the parterre and the higher box-seats. Many were equipped with lorgnettes, studying in detail the idosyncracies and nuances of individual's interactions with each other. The purpose of scrutiny was the judgement of etiquette. Established by noble tradition, Johnson suggests that etiquette at this time stemmed from Cardinal Richelieu's "attempts in the 17th century to ensure respectful behavior towards the monarch from an unruly aristocracy." In this way Johnson suggests social behavior at the opera becomes a testament of devotion to the ruling power structure.
The setup of the opera house reflects the social desire to be seen as well as the structure of power and influence at the time. "Not a clear view of the opera was of paramount importance in any way: to be seen was a higher priority." To attend was "social power displayed," as signified by the visibility of one's seat in the house. Moreover, the most visible boxes were the most ornate and the most expensive, signifying the wealth of their occupiers.
The performance itself was not treated with nearly as much attention as modern audiences would pay. As aforementioned, people were there mainly to be seen and thus the music was "little more than an agreeable ornament to a magnificent spectacle, in which they themselves played the principle part." Audiences were more amused by than absorbed into the performance, and "attentivenesss was a social faux pas."
Through outlining these main aspects of the opera, Johnson exposes that the existing social structure in France was fueled by reverence for the monarchy. The reigning etiquette was derived from the nobility: "from the fleur-de-lys on the proscenium to the personalities on display, you saw reminders of Versailles." The setup of the theatre supported this notion by providing a lense on the rest of society and an opportunity to judge said etiquette. The opera experience provides a glimpse into the suffocating sociopolitical structure of the time, setting a backdrop to the changes in society and music that were to follow as the enlightenment continued and French Revolution neared.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Things to Keep in Mind
As you write your post for Tuesday, remember that as the term progresses, the more you will have read, so the opportunities for synthesis increase. You may find it productive to compare/contrast what you learned from Johnson with what you learned from Le Guin. (Perhaps Johnson could be invited to the Salon de Parnasse?) Or you may wish to (re)consider our repertoire (Pergolesi, Hasse, Gluck, etc) in light of what you read.
But don't go straight to synthesis. Remember that we need to start with analysis. What is the author saying? How is s/he saying it? Several of our colleagues in Salon de Music 362 (please won't someone come up with a better title?) did a good job with this in their first posts. I encourage you to read each other's posts and my comments. Let's stand on each other's shoulders -- learn from one another and build on one another's good work.
Assume that YOU will be chosen to read your opening statement on Tuesday. Please reread section of three of the Discussion and Blogging Manual.
You'll notice I've added boxes for "interesting" and "I want to discuss this" below posts. This is a little bit like "liking" something in Facebook, or "was this review helpful to you" in Amazon.com. I may consider these boxes when I select people to read their opening statments -- so vote!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)