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?