In turn, it is recognizable that the orchestra pit of the past, with its differing design variations, afforded certain practices. For example, playing an instrument in the Teatro Regio in Turin differed from playing an instrument in the Teatro San Cassiano, for the reason that the dimensions of the pit in Turin required the orchestra and the conductor to sit in a different manner, and therefore also communicate differently among each other and the stage. Thus, in Turin, the pit could afford only one functioning seating order – which in general has a lot of impact on the practices and performance of music (Meyer, 1972, p. 303).
Also, different musical styles occupy an important role in this respect: in the eighteenth century, the relatively small Mozartian orchestras were placed in full view of the audience in order to achieve clarity in sound. Because instruments were quieter, they sounded more brilliant when the orchestra was placed in such a way that there was no obstacle between the musicians and the audience. A non-sunken pit was therefore the best solution to perform operas by Mozart. A sunken pit could not afford the musicians with being placed at the same level of the audience, and therefore constituted a disadvantage in achieving a balanced opera performance (Beranek, 2004). With a sunken pit, the musicians would have been simply too quiet and the clarity of the instruments would have drowned in the pit.
Also here, it is noticeable that the different positions of the orchestras, as dictated by the orchestra pit design, played a major part in the performance of opera music. Different orchestra positions resulted in different atmospheres and shades of clarity, which both are crucial to how the audience perceived the musical performance. This connects, however, to the fact that opera houses were usually built for contemporary operas and therefore required certain architectural elements to suit the music that would be played in the house (Forsyth, 1985, p. 73). Thus, affordances of the orchestra pit design were, to a certain extent, constructed in order to achieve specific results for the acoustics or the social structure of opera going (Johnson, 1995, p. 9).
However, although affordances were constructed, this does not mean that they cannot be problematic for the practices. In turn, composers often wrote pieces of music for specific opera houses, although it remains unclear to what extent the composers really paid attention to the acoustic requirements of the specific opera houses.
References:
- Beranek, L. (2004). Concert Halls and Opera Houses: Music, Acoustics, and Architecture. [2nded.]. New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Forsyth, M. (1985). Buildings for Music: The Architect, the Musician, and the Listener from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Johnson, J. (1995). Listening in Paris. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Meyer, J. (1972). Akustik und musikalische Aufführungspraxis : Leitfaden für Akustiker, Tonmeister, Musiker, Instrumentenbauer und Architekten. Verlag Das Musikinstrument.
- If you are interested in what problems different designs of orchestra pits pose to musical practices, click here.
- Wagner interests you more than Mozart? Then this article might be helpful.
- So what does all this mean for acoustic design? For some reflections, click here.