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?