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?
Monday, April 6, 2009
Post on Le Guin
Madame De Stael brought up an interesting point during the discussion, saying that “the kind of pleasure produced by an animated conversation does not precisely consist in the subject of that conversation.” The musicians were friends, family, and of varying degrees of musical ability, and the music, a Haydn sonata in this case, just seemed to happen. The music itself seems to become part of the conversation between friends and acquaintances, this is clear, but the thing I wonder is how the musicians stop and become part of the verbal conversation. I personally like to finish a piece of music when I start it, but maybe that is one of the differences in function/taste/understanding/perspective à propos de music now and then. The context of playing the music is covered too, which is where I take issue. I gleaned from the article that completeness and virtuosity are not integral to the music, as is the fact that the music made and discussed. The enjoyment of the piece of music, or the conversation, didn’t hinge on the music being made well or continuously. Along those same lines, I really enjoyed the interplay and analogy of music and conversation, especially the use of the terms entretien and conversation. Being a French speaker and amateur linguist (as were the characters in the reading, I think), I enjoy finding shades of meaning between words, and they explain this distinction very well. Music in the time period shown seems to make the metaphor about conversation less of a literary/conversational device and more of an inextricable fact: they are the same. Is this what the characters are trying to evoke? Is the metaphor useless as such?
Johnson, 4/08, Simon
The aristocracy was one of the biggest influences on the modus operandi of the Versailles opera house, and as the king’s and his nobles’ attention shifted away, the landscape changed accordingly. How did the Crown’s attention (or lack thereof) affect the development of opera? Was it for better, or for worse?
From our modern viewpoint, the opera house described by Johnson seems, at best, inefficient and frustrating, and at worst, disgusting and downright dangerous. The primary objective of the audience is to see and be seen; poor lighting for the orchestra and constant side conversation in the parterre and the boxes did little to diminish the audiences enjoyment. This essay makes it ever clearer that, as Diderot says, “there’s been quite a shift” in objective for the opera. But if this is the case, why is the music composed for those opera houses so relevant today? Why is the study of music theory focused around an era in which music was employed primarily as background noise?
From our modern viewpoint, the opera house described by Johnson seems, at best, inefficient and frustrating, and at worst, disgusting and downright dangerous. The primary objective of the audience is to see and be seen; poor lighting for the orchestra and constant side conversation in the parterre and the boxes did little to diminish the audiences enjoyment. This essay makes it ever clearer that, as Diderot says, “there’s been quite a shift” in objective for the opera. But if this is the case, why is the music composed for those opera houses so relevant today? Why is the study of music theory focused around an era in which music was employed primarily as background noise?
Opera as Social Duty
In this text the author paints a picture of French social values in the mid 18th century by describing musical life in regard to the opera. The main aspects of the opera that reveal French values include the behaviors of the audience, the setup of the theatre, and what was most valued in performance.
The behaviors of the audience include a concern with appearances and manners; as we will see in the setup of the opera house, the most important thing in attending the opera was being seen. It was the meeting place of the richest nobility, seated in reserved boxes in "prime" locations, flanked by the outer edges of upper-middle class society crammed into the parterre and the higher box-seats. Many were equipped with lorgnettes, studying in detail the idosyncracies and nuances of individual's interactions with each other. The purpose of scrutiny was the judgement of etiquette. Established by noble tradition, Johnson suggests that etiquette at this time stemmed from Cardinal Richelieu's "attempts in the 17th century to ensure respectful behavior towards the monarch from an unruly aristocracy." In this way Johnson suggests social behavior at the opera becomes a testament of devotion to the ruling power structure.
The setup of the opera house reflects the social desire to be seen as well as the structure of power and influence at the time. "Not a clear view of the opera was of paramount importance in any way: to be seen was a higher priority." To attend was "social power displayed," as signified by the visibility of one's seat in the house. Moreover, the most visible boxes were the most ornate and the most expensive, signifying the wealth of their occupiers.
The performance itself was not treated with nearly as much attention as modern audiences would pay. As aforementioned, people were there mainly to be seen and thus the music was "little more than an agreeable ornament to a magnificent spectacle, in which they themselves played the principle part." Audiences were more amused by than absorbed into the performance, and "attentivenesss was a social faux pas."
Through outlining these main aspects of the opera, Johnson exposes that the existing social structure in France was fueled by reverence for the monarchy. The reigning etiquette was derived from the nobility: "from the fleur-de-lys on the proscenium to the personalities on display, you saw reminders of Versailles." The setup of the theatre supported this notion by providing a lense on the rest of society and an opportunity to judge said etiquette. The opera experience provides a glimpse into the suffocating sociopolitical structure of the time, setting a backdrop to the changes in society and music that were to follow as the enlightenment continued and French Revolution neared.
The behaviors of the audience include a concern with appearances and manners; as we will see in the setup of the opera house, the most important thing in attending the opera was being seen. It was the meeting place of the richest nobility, seated in reserved boxes in "prime" locations, flanked by the outer edges of upper-middle class society crammed into the parterre and the higher box-seats. Many were equipped with lorgnettes, studying in detail the idosyncracies and nuances of individual's interactions with each other. The purpose of scrutiny was the judgement of etiquette. Established by noble tradition, Johnson suggests that etiquette at this time stemmed from Cardinal Richelieu's "attempts in the 17th century to ensure respectful behavior towards the monarch from an unruly aristocracy." In this way Johnson suggests social behavior at the opera becomes a testament of devotion to the ruling power structure.
The setup of the opera house reflects the social desire to be seen as well as the structure of power and influence at the time. "Not a clear view of the opera was of paramount importance in any way: to be seen was a higher priority." To attend was "social power displayed," as signified by the visibility of one's seat in the house. Moreover, the most visible boxes were the most ornate and the most expensive, signifying the wealth of their occupiers.
The performance itself was not treated with nearly as much attention as modern audiences would pay. As aforementioned, people were there mainly to be seen and thus the music was "little more than an agreeable ornament to a magnificent spectacle, in which they themselves played the principle part." Audiences were more amused by than absorbed into the performance, and "attentivenesss was a social faux pas."
Through outlining these main aspects of the opera, Johnson exposes that the existing social structure in France was fueled by reverence for the monarchy. The reigning etiquette was derived from the nobility: "from the fleur-de-lys on the proscenium to the personalities on display, you saw reminders of Versailles." The setup of the theatre supported this notion by providing a lense on the rest of society and an opportunity to judge said etiquette. The opera experience provides a glimpse into the suffocating sociopolitical structure of the time, setting a backdrop to the changes in society and music that were to follow as the enlightenment continued and French Revolution neared.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Things to Keep in Mind
As you write your post for Tuesday, remember that as the term progresses, the more you will have read, so the opportunities for synthesis increase. You may find it productive to compare/contrast what you learned from Johnson with what you learned from Le Guin. (Perhaps Johnson could be invited to the Salon de Parnasse?) Or you may wish to (re)consider our repertoire (Pergolesi, Hasse, Gluck, etc) in light of what you read.
But don't go straight to synthesis. Remember that we need to start with analysis. What is the author saying? How is s/he saying it? Several of our colleagues in Salon de Music 362 (please won't someone come up with a better title?) did a good job with this in their first posts. I encourage you to read each other's posts and my comments. Let's stand on each other's shoulders -- learn from one another and build on one another's good work.
Assume that YOU will be chosen to read your opening statement on Tuesday. Please reread section of three of the Discussion and Blogging Manual.
You'll notice I've added boxes for "interesting" and "I want to discuss this" below posts. This is a little bit like "liking" something in Facebook, or "was this review helpful to you" in Amazon.com. I may consider these boxes when I select people to read their opening statments -- so vote!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)