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?