I would like some straight answers please. Hands up everybody who without
running off to the bookshelves first, thinks of England in the Victorian
age as being musically rather inferior to the rest of Europe? To the
musical cultures of France, Italy and Germany at least? Now go to the
bookshelves and check the latest thinking on the matter. You will
find that to answer 'yes' to the question above will render you a subject
for pity - even mild derision. England may not have produced a Bach,
Beethoven, Berlioz or a Brahms but it did produce Broadwood pianos, a
lively publishing industry and a commercial opera and concert tradition.
Vast quantities of music was consumed. This is the current line. But is this
enough? Can a musical culture ultimately do without the musical product?
Without the composer? Not that England was without composers - but until
the emergence of Elgar in the 1880s - there was certainly none who
possessed stature outside of Britain.
Was everybody wrong? Were nearly all critical commentators of the
19c engaged in a different discourse about the nature of culture?
And does the current discourse contradict or simply replace theirs?
I would welcome any comment.
Ann Beedell
Humanities
Griffith University, Q. Australia 4111
A.Beedell@hum.gu.edu.au