Letter from Schenker to Cotta, dated July 2, 1906 [ not in Schenker’s hand: ] [ in Schenker’s hand: ] Sehr geehrter Herr ! Da der Beisp. 173 nicht zum Haupttext, sondern zur Fußnote gehört, so ist es notwendig, dies auch äußerlich kenntlich zu machen.1 Ich bitte daher, den Herrn Setzer aufmerksam zu machen, daß dieses Arrangement sehr leicht durchzuführen ist, indem die letzten 3 Zeilen des Haupttextes S. 220 auf die Mit bestem Dank © Heirs of Heinrich Schenker; reproduced here by kind permission of the Deutsches Literaturarchiv, Cotta-Archiv (Stiftung der Stuttgarter Zeitung), Marbach am Neckar. |
Letter from Schenker to Cotta, dated July 2, 1906 [ not in Schenker’s hand: ] [ in Schenker’s hand: ] Dear Sir, Since music example 173 belongs not to the main text but to the footnote, it is necessary to make this crystal clear.1 I should like therefore to draw the type-setter’s attention to the fact that this arrangement can be effected very easily by moving the last three lines of main text from p. 220 to the following page, 221,2 and shifting a few lines from the main text of p.224 back to pp. 222 and 223, and letting the footnote flow on continuously beneath the line.3 With many thanks, © Translation Ian D. Bent 2005. |
COMMENTARY: FOOTNOTES: 1 Ex. 173 quotes the Max Reger Piano Quintet, Op.64 in score, and belongs to footnote 1, beginning on p.220 and continuing through to p.226. (The footnote is entirely omitted from the Mann Borghese trans., the corresponding place in which is p.174, line 9 at the phrase “step progression.”) The footnote is a controversial one in which Schenker, having in the main text remarked that modern music is at fault in lacking the scale-degree, begins: “As a deterrent (abschreckend) example I give here the opening of the Quintet Op.64 of a modern composer ...”, describes the passage as “one big, totally irrational mass” and the composer as “devoid of all musical instinct”, and ends by decrying Reger’s being hailed by critics as a “master of musical composition.” See CA 1-2, November 8, 1905, paragraph 4, for reference to Reger in his initial proposal to Cotta. 2 The proof must have had five lines of main text on p.220, since it now has two before the footnote begins. 3 Line: the short horizontal rule separating the main text from the footnote on all seven pages. The footnote text continues through to p.224, the example to p.226. SUMMARY: © Commentary, Footnotes, Summary Ian D. Bent 2005.
|