ABSTRACT
IN an essay on past and present in music therapy, historian Peregrine Horden (2000) argues that contemporary professional music therapy is remarkably hard to specify. He finds the official definitions of the field rather open-ended and suggests that criteria of success will be as elusive as definitions. In a similar vein, Ruud (2010) suggests that the diversity of contemporary music therapy makes it very challenging for clients, workplaces, and the public to relate to the profession. In the light of these concerns, community music therapy makes a bad situation worse, as its development leads to a further extension and diversification of contemporary music therapy. This is perhaps part of the explanation why the emergence of an international discourse of community music therapy after 2000 not only instigated interest and enthusiasm but also disapproval and criticism, ranging from the proposal that community music therapy is redundant (Edwards, 2002) to the appraisal that its non-medical profile is professional suicide (Erkkilä, 2003). In 2008 the British
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 2
and Profession
prescribed territory or through involvement in contingent and collaborative relationships.
