{"title":"Book Review: The Music Profession in Britain, 1780–1920: New Perspectives on Status and Identity","authors":"Gordon Cox","doi":"10.1177/15366006211039120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The year 2015 marked the thirtieth anniversary of Cyril Ehrlich’s landmark book, The Music Profession in Britain since the Eighteenth Century: A Social History (1986).1 A conference was organized, and this volume of essays has resulted from it. Professor Cyril Ehrlich (1925–2004) was primarily an economic historian of Africa. In the course of the 1960s, he switched his research to music. He realized that while the social history of music had begun to receive attention, its economic history had been virtually ignored. His first book in this field was The Piano: A History (1976) in which he focused upon industrial production and the growth of a market.2 Ehrlich’s influence has been considerable, as evident in a series of essays published in his honor in 2000, Music and British Culture 1785–1914 (Christina Bashford and Leanne Langley, eds.).3 As far as music education history is concerned, David Wright’s notable social and cultural history The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (2013)4 is clearly influenced by Ehrlich’s work. In the Introduction, Rosemary Golding outlines the main themes under consideration. Her dilemma lies in the impossibility of describing a single ‘music profession’ because of music’s protean nature. She quotes the sociologist Julia Evetts’s writing about professions: “Most researchers have accepted definitional uncertainty and moved on” (p. 2). In this volume, the contributors positively engage with such incertitude. Rebecca Gribble’s opening chapter considers the finances, estates, and social status of musicians in the late eighteenth century. She challenges the commonly held view that musicians occupied a low social status as artisans. In fact, they could gain patronage and improve their own social status through teaching socially superior young women to play an instrument or sing. Other artisans lacked this contact. Gribble concludes that while allocating ‘artisan’ status can be","PeriodicalId":40170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Research in Music Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Historical Research in Music Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15366006211039120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The year 2015 marked the thirtieth anniversary of Cyril Ehrlich’s landmark book, The Music Profession in Britain since the Eighteenth Century: A Social History (1986).1 A conference was organized, and this volume of essays has resulted from it. Professor Cyril Ehrlich (1925–2004) was primarily an economic historian of Africa. In the course of the 1960s, he switched his research to music. He realized that while the social history of music had begun to receive attention, its economic history had been virtually ignored. His first book in this field was The Piano: A History (1976) in which he focused upon industrial production and the growth of a market.2 Ehrlich’s influence has been considerable, as evident in a series of essays published in his honor in 2000, Music and British Culture 1785–1914 (Christina Bashford and Leanne Langley, eds.).3 As far as music education history is concerned, David Wright’s notable social and cultural history The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (2013)4 is clearly influenced by Ehrlich’s work. In the Introduction, Rosemary Golding outlines the main themes under consideration. Her dilemma lies in the impossibility of describing a single ‘music profession’ because of music’s protean nature. She quotes the sociologist Julia Evetts’s writing about professions: “Most researchers have accepted definitional uncertainty and moved on” (p. 2). In this volume, the contributors positively engage with such incertitude. Rebecca Gribble’s opening chapter considers the finances, estates, and social status of musicians in the late eighteenth century. She challenges the commonly held view that musicians occupied a low social status as artisans. In fact, they could gain patronage and improve their own social status through teaching socially superior young women to play an instrument or sing. Other artisans lacked this contact. Gribble concludes that while allocating ‘artisan’ status can be
2015年是西里尔·埃利希里程碑式的著作《18世纪以来英国的音乐职业:社会史》出版30周年组织了一次会议,由此产生了这本论文集。西里尔·埃利希教授(1925-2004)主要是非洲经济历史学家。在20世纪60年代,他将研究转向了音乐。他意识到,当音乐的社会史开始受到关注时,它的经济史实际上却被忽视了。他在这一领域的第一本书是《钢琴:一段历史》(1976),在这本书中,他专注于工业生产和市场的增长埃利希的影响是相当大的,正如2000年为纪念他而发表的一系列文章《1785-1914年的音乐和英国文化》(克里斯蒂娜·巴什福德和琳恩·兰利主编)所示就音乐教育史而言,David Wright著名的《The Associated Board of The Royal Schools of music》(2013)4显然受到了埃利希作品的影响。在引言中,罗斯玛丽·戈尔丁概述了正在考虑的主要主题。她的困境在于无法描述单一的“音乐职业”,因为音乐具有千变万化的本质。她引用了社会学家朱莉娅·埃维茨(Julia Evetts)关于职业的文章:“大多数研究人员已经接受了定义上的不确定性,并继续前进”(第2页)。在这本书中,作者积极地参与了这种不确定性。丽贝卡·格里布尔的第一章考虑了18世纪晚期音乐家的经济状况、财产和社会地位。她挑战了人们普遍认为音乐家作为工匠的社会地位低下的观点。事实上,他们可以通过教社会地位优越的年轻女性演奏乐器或唱歌来获得赞助,提高自己的社会地位。其他工匠缺乏这种接触。格里布尔总结说,虽然分配“工匠”地位可以