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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're asking a really interesting and important question, and it has several ancillaries, for example, why do we (as performers) so exhaustively rehearse this music that wasn't listened to? why do we (as audience members) listen so attentively to music that wasn't listened attentively to? Should we do differently?
ReplyDeleteBut your OS comes off as a little greedy -- you want to go straight to the big question, indeed a question that may well lead us to a discussion that focuses much more on the present day than on the process Johnson describes. I'm glad you're asking what you're asking, but for this class you have to lead us to answer the big questions by going back to the text. Is there some component *of the process Johnson describes* that caused a particular repertoire to end up in theory textbooks (and on stage, and exhaustively rehearsed, and attentively listened to)? This is what your analysis section should begin to do.
PS: reread both of my comments before posting #3.