When Classical 101 host Christopher Purdy hands you a book about opera from his personal shelf, it's probably best to read it, especially if the first page has a glowing review from esteemed Musicologist, Richard Taruskin, and the Introduction immediately touches on critical reception of music history. Those are typically pretty good signs.
Dual-authorship has its ups and downs from what I hear. Be that as it may, authors Carolyn Abbate and Roger Parker undertook the onerous task of writing a single volume with the title, A History of Opera, and as if that was not enough, they worked on the material with one authorial voice rather than splitting the chapters piece-meal. There could not have been a better pairing of authors, when considering the individuals, either. Both Abate and Parker are highly-respected for their authority on everything from Donizetti to film studies.
Reading A History of Opera
Chris handed me the updated edition, which I love, because that means that the authors have had time to receive reviews and rework some of their material-- it's like going to see something on opening night versus catching a show that has already had a good run and the actors have really worked through their motivations. Good works on history and musicology should age well.
The bulk of the book, (567 pages ) is what you might expect; expertly-researched accounts of the music and drama-- onstage and off-- that has shaped the evolution of opera from the so-called, "pastoral drama," of the mid-1400's to Phillip Glass and the culture of DVD operatic consumption. The voice of the author(s)-- it truly sounds unified-- is eloquent but easy to read. It's that conversational. The authors are also careful to define jargon as they go, thus making it intelligent and yet readable for the lay-person.
The best portion of the book for those of us who may be writing about music, or those who like aesthetic-reception theorizing, is actually the Preface and Introduction.
In the Introduction, the authors set up the way in which they have chosen to view the history and continuance of opera: Is it a relic; an artifact to be shelved, cataloged and revered just as it was first performed? Or should Opera as a whole be reimagined and taken for what it can be, today. Similarly, the authors begged the question of how familiar music must be for it to be appreciated today. Can the average person truly appreciate something either so old or so new that it does not readily sit within their vernacular?
So, upon reading this and carefully citing it for my own thesis, I did what any college musician would do; I asked the internet.
On Familiarity, Language, and Reception
The results varied, as you would expect, and they all represented a fascinating dichotomy of how people from various levels of interest and music education equate appreciation, familiarity, pleasure, and understanding. Here are a few of my favorite responses:
Annie, Art History PhD candidate:
Well, I'd say for modern art, people don't appreciate (it) because it's not easily understandable. Perhaps people don't like opera because it's in a foreign language. But, I think people would be more inclined to go to an opera if they recognized a phrase.
Aaron, Graphic Designer, responding:
Agreed, I don't listen to music in any foreign language - even genres I really like. I've tried, but not understanding the lyrics is a large barrier for me. Also, any genre that you're not familiar with has the problem of all the songs sounding the same until you get a better ear for the differences in the common structure that defines the genre. All country - same song. All ranchero - same song. All speed metal - same song. You can't appreciate a song until you learn to hear what makes it unique inside the structure of it's genre, right?
Hamish, Ancient History Professor:
I've never been, or am vaguely curious, but in today's entertainment-rich environment, I am not motivated to spend money and time on something I'm not sure if I'll like when I could be doing things I do.
Josh, Software Engineer, (responding to Hamish's comment):
I bought a new car that came with a free Sirius trial, and I've been using it to get acquainted with jazz. It's a genre that I've pretty much never listened to, but I knew I would enjoy it since I enjoy similar and derivative genres (read as: prog rock). "Jazz" is a pretty vague concept, so there's a lot to try to take in, and I certainly get a much bigger burst of pleasure when I hear a cover of a song I'm familiar with, but I still enjoy it all nonetheless. I don't really think "appreciate" is an appropriate term since I can appreciate most music for what it is. I can appreciate classical music (even if I don't understand many of its finer points). I can appreciate rap or hip hop even if I don't particularly enjoy them. I think I'm in a minority of people, though, who actively respect and appreciate anything I take in, and that's been a long-earned skill. I still think back to plays I saw in high school and think "man, I would like to see that again since I didn't fully appreciate it when I first saw it". So, I would posit that enjoyment is more related to familiarity; appreciation is a skill that can be honed and refined, and can certainly be enhanced by familiarity with the subject matter, but is not completely dependent upon it.
Obviously this is a small sample of people I know personally, so it cannot be taken as true data of any sort, but it did make an interesting conversation. Perspectives are almost impossible to dismiss when it comes to critique and appreciation, so every answer was unique and valuable.
So what do you think? What level of familiarity do you believe people need to establish before they may appreciate or enjoy music? Comment below!