Book Review
Jul. 29th, 2010 07:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kenjariWomen in Music: an Anthology of Source Readings
edited by Carol Neuls-Bates
I read this book as a follow-up to Women Making Music: The Western Art Tradition, 1150-1950. The anthology did make a very good companion piece, adding depth and color to the material in the other book. The source readings were all very interesting and most of them were quite illuminating. It was also nice to see writings by and about very obscure and forgotten women (e.g., late 19th century concert pianists) as well as the more well-known people like Clara Schumann and Ruth Crawford-Seeger. Also, Neuls-Bates chose and framed many of her readings to place emphasis on women's struggles for professional employment, status, and achievement, a focus that I appreciated.
Notably, where Women Making Music had a lot of great stuff about early music, Women in Music was more heavily weighted towards the 19th and twentieth centuries. I wonder if this was a conscious choice on the editor's part or just a result of the kinds of primary sources available for different periods.
edited by Carol Neuls-Bates
I read this book as a follow-up to Women Making Music: The Western Art Tradition, 1150-1950. The anthology did make a very good companion piece, adding depth and color to the material in the other book. The source readings were all very interesting and most of them were quite illuminating. It was also nice to see writings by and about very obscure and forgotten women (e.g., late 19th century concert pianists) as well as the more well-known people like Clara Schumann and Ruth Crawford-Seeger. Also, Neuls-Bates chose and framed many of her readings to place emphasis on women's struggles for professional employment, status, and achievement, a focus that I appreciated.
Notably, where Women Making Music had a lot of great stuff about early music, Women in Music was more heavily weighted towards the 19th and twentieth centuries. I wonder if this was a conscious choice on the editor's part or just a result of the kinds of primary sources available for different periods.
