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?