1. ALL IN IT TOGETHER?
ORGANISING
MUSICIANS IN THE
FIRST WORLD WAR
JOHN WILLIAMSON
UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW
31ST AUGUST 2014

2. INTRODUCTION: 4 PARTS
CONTEXT: emergence and growth of Amalgamated
Musicians’ Union (AMU)
TRADE UNIONS AND THE WAR: changing attitudes
and influence on workers
THE AMU & THE MUSIC PROFESSION: how the
AMU managed the disputes within the profession over
matters of pay and competition
OUTCOMES: reorganisation and perennial issues

3. ORGANISING MUSICIANS BEFORE
THE WAR
PRE C.19TH: Guilds, Fellowships and Brotherhoods
offered professional status and benevolence
By the mid-1800s: industrialisation + demand for
entertainment = more musical work but poor working
conditions. Catalyst for workers in music profession
becoming more organised.
(Incorporated) Society of Musicians formed in 1882;
Union of Graduates in Music (1893)

4. ORGANISING MUSICIANS BEFORE
THE WAR
AMU formed by Joe Williams in 1893 in Manchester
“a protecting union . . .that will protect us from
amateurs, unscrupulous employers and ourselves”
Orchestral Association formed in London in 1893 –
not a trade union, but many of the same aims.
Still opposition from established music profession: “no
support from this journal” (The Musical News, Nov.
1894)

5. ORGANISING MUSICIANS BEFORE
THE WAR
BUT – both organisations grew rapidly – AMU has
8000 members by 1914 – by far the largest musicians’
organisation.
SHARED ISSUES (pay and conditions, competition
from non-members) but CONFLICT between AMU and
LOA – lack of unity even within organised part of music
profession

6. TRADE UNIONS AND THE WAR
Competing internal and external influences on the
AMU.
External influence from the TUC:
dropping of opposition to War
industrial truce: “closing any disputes and in
preventing the commencement of new disputes in
present circumstances”

7. TRADE UNIONS AND THE WAR
Hutt: “a decisive break for the trade union movement”
Webb and Webb: unions became “part of the social
machinery of the State”
Wrigley: “a massive boost to collective bargaining”
AMU / Williams were extremely supportive of the War

9. AMU, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
COMPETITION IN DURING WAR
3 issues - pay, competition from (i) military musicians
and (ii) foreign musicians
Pay: Williams agreed to pay cuts with major
employers on the outbreak of War.
Protest from branches about acting unconstitutionally
and cuts when it became clear that work was returning
to normal after initial disruption cause by War

10. AMU, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
COMPETITION IN DURING WAR
War was to present more opportunities for musical
work – market for musical work was recalibrated.
“The Union will long have cause to think itself lucky
that the General Secretary acted as an autocrat in the
crisis” (Musicians’ Report and Journal)

11. AMU, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
COMPETITION IN DURING WAR
Military musicians had been seen as a threat since
the formation of the AMU:
“civilian musicians have to pay for their tuition, their
own instruments, have to support themselves and their
families and contribute their mite towards the support
of soldiers . . .military bandsmen are taught free have
their instruments paid for, and, being soldiers, are
provided for” (AMU Monthly Report, Feb 1895)

12. AMU, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
COMPETITION IN DURING WAR
During the War, the displacement of civilian musicians
by bandsmen was cause of much AMU complaint /
rhetoric but to little avail . . .War Office sees “no reason
to interfere in the matter”

15. AMU, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
COMPETITION IN DURING WAR
‘foreign’ musicians: German and Hungarian
musicians returned home at outbreak of War; refugees
from Belgium and France arrived in early stages of
War. Domestic musicians feared jobs would be taken
by refugees.
“antipathy to foreigners” and “xenophobia” evident to
varying degrees in assorted branch / district motions to
Union’s executive.

16. AMU, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
COMPETITION IN DURING WAR
Williams set out support for “comrades in arms” from
Belgium and France – solidarity of unionists overriding
nationality, when “not injuring our own members’
interests”
The Union finally agreed to allow foreign musicians to
join but “subjects of the Central Powers and their allies
shall not be allowed to become members of our Union.
Exceptions may be made with the consent of the EC in
special cases where men have been good members of
the Union.”

17. POST-WAR OUTCOMES
Williams: “if one considers the tremendous upheaval
caused by the War, our profession has not been
affected to any serious extent.”
AMU (& Williams) played a considerable part in
ensuring that was the case.
Post War integration was easier than expected thanks
to “seemingly limitless opportunities.”

18. POST-WAR OUTCOMES
Williams: “if one considers the tremendous upheaval
caused by the War, our profession has not been
affected to any serious extent.”
AMU (& Williams) played a considerable part in
ensuring that was the case.
Post War integration was easier than expected thanks
to “seemingly limitless opportunities” in profession.

19. POST-WAR OUTCOMES
AMU continued to grow with the profession and merged
with what was the Orchestral Association in 1921 to form
Musicians’ Union
BUT optimism about better relations with employers
proved to be unfulfilled: pay and conditions did not
dramatically improve and threat to employment from
Military musicians and from ‘Americans and other Alien
musicians’ remained.
AMU survived the War but problems facing it as an
organisation were unresolved and new ones to emerge . .
.

20. POST-WAR OUTCOMES

21. THANKS!
John Williamson / John.C.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk
http://www.muhistory.com