Johnson paints a picture of an opera different than what we know today. The “noise and bustle” (10) went unnoticed, and it was even “unfashionable to arrive at the opera on time” (9). It seems as though just as much action was happening on stage as was in the audience. It is ironic that the “most prestigious” and “most expensive” boxes in the theatre “provided a terrible view of the spectacle [which spectacle?]” (16). The layout of the theatre reflected the strata of social classes; there were pits where throngs of plebeians gathered, as well as the more coveted box seats, providing a barrier between lower and upper class.
During the eighteenth century, a sort of music transformation took place. For some reason, techniques such as word painting found a place in the operatic repertoire. It is also interesting to note that a change in how people think about music occurred as well. Rameau’s conviction that “the orchestra could convey emotional states” (49) is drastically different from his predecessor, Saint-Preux’s view that “music is nothing but a vain sound” (35). What precipitated this change? Who changed? Was it the performers, the performance, the music, the audience, the surrounding culture, the aristocracy, the promoters, the kings and queens...?
Questions:
What catalyzed the shift in viewpoint of opera as a social function, to opera as solemn art?
Is this shift reversible considering modern society and music? Could the opera become the rancorous event that it once was?
In the opening to his second chapter, Johnson quotes Saint-Preux: “Music is nothing but a vain sound that can flatter the ear and acts only indirectly on the soul…” (35). Is this how we, modern music listeners, view music? If not, what has changed in music so that we no longer view it as “vain sound”?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would have been delighted to hear these questions debated in class. The first is helpful because it forces the class to revisit a text that is very nuanced with detail, and isolate the main junctures of the shift, and list them in a linear fashion. In doing so we would clarify Johnson's argument, but also find ourselves well positioned to critique it. Did a really cause b? Are we persuaded that c was the impetus for d?
ReplyDeleteThe development described in the text is still either unclear or unpersuasive for you (which is OK) as evidenced by your "for some reason" in the second paragraph. When you find yourself using such as phrase, you know you have a worthy OS question.
Revisit your second sentence. As a general rule, do not use a quote to say something you could say yourself. You could save the quotes for "unfashionable" but even that is not so particularly special or exclusively Johnson-esque. Nevertheless, you are right to structure your analysis around quotes. Compare your use of quotes to Margaret and Sam and Corey in particular.