Johnson (Sam Steere)

Johnson's writing reveals to us, his readers, the drastically different experience afforded to opera-goers of the 18th century from our own polished performances of today. Unlike our modern perspective, opera houses of the time were places for the public display of social status and served as a forum for the interaction of individuals within a variety of social classes (although predominantly the aristocracy). This "interaction" was not only in the form of conversation, but often found its primary expression in observation. The supremacy of the social function allowed the now sacred silence of the performance hall to be transgressed through conversation, constant movement, and in some instances, singing and dancing. The Opera seems to have maintained a constant atmosphere of judgment and comparison by no means limited to a critique of the performance itself. More significant was the critique of people: their posture and reactions, their gentility, and the presence of either honorable or scandalous companions. One need not even have been attentive to the opera itself (what a ridiculous idea!) in order to praise or condemn it. Just be sure to align your critique with the opinion of respectable individuals.

Even if an 18th century music connoisseur were to, against all rules of etiquette, listen attentively to the opera, the presuppositions that would direct his/her listening were far different than the modern perspective. Music was not considered to have any emotional value in and of itself. 18th century listeners would instead listen to music through the filter or lens of imitation. Though music was not emotional itself (in their estimation), it could imitate realities (birds, battles, storms, etc.) which in turn would evoke the desired emotion. This concept of imitation became so deeply rooted in the French perception of music that the attributed meanings behind various lines and phrases became rather obsessive to our modern ear. Every note or movement could have a designated action or reality assigned to it. The extent to which some observers went to establish these metaphorical relationships seems almost laughable now, but the connection between music and reality was what began the process of understanding music as we do in the modern era: as having innate, tangible and influential emotion as a part of its very essence.

1. What in our modern age is similar to the social dynamic of 18th Century opera? (ex. We may not talk during performances, but attending is a sign of wealth and status to an extent.)

2. Does the concept of specific analogous comparison in music (as the Parisians used to do) detract from or add to the experience of the art form? We see the emotion as innate, but could this idea of perceiving imitation lend itself to greater appreciation?