Handwritten letter from Schenker to Cotta, dated September 13, 1907 [ not in Schenker’s hand, ink: ] Schenker [ pencil: ] 13/9 [ in Schenker’s hand: ] Besten Dank für Sendung vom 5. d.M.1 In Wien rüsten die “Herren von der Presse“ zu feulletons über den Band I|2; aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach werden sie sehr entusiastisch[ corr ], aber darum doch in der Sache selbst verfehlt sein. Indessen ist gegen „Zeitung“ kein Kraut gewachsen; man ...[?] den seite[?] auch schon von Königen u. Staatsmännern verhätschelten Journalisten überlassen, sich mit ihrer Ignoranz abzufinden, so gut sie es vermögen. Mir selbst ist das freilich alles gleichgültig. Sehr bald überreiche ich Ihnen den Bd. II „Contrapunkt“ {2} der schon wegen seines Stoffes, einem wirklichen Lehrbuche ähnlicher sieht als Bd. I; so daß in absehbarer Zeit die Pointe: „der Niedergang der Composition_“ als _Band III (statt des früher geplanten „Nachwortes“)4 über die Wirkung der „N. Th. u. Fants.[“] wird entscheiden können. Ich bin fest überzeugt, daß Bd III nicht vergebens geschrieben sein wird. Glücklicherweise kann sich auch der Druck der Bd II fließender gestalten, so daß mir wenig Zeit darüber verloren gehen wird. Mit ausgez. Hochachtung © Heirs of Heinrich Schenker. |
Handwritten letter from Schenker to Cotta, dated September 13, 1907 [ not in Schenker’s hand, ink: ] Schenker [ pencil: ] Sept 13 [ in Schenker’s hand: ] Many thanks for what you sent me on the 5th inst.1 In Vienna the “gentlemen of the press” are girding themselves up to write their feuilletons about volume I.2 All the signs are that they will be highly enthusiastic, but even so the essentials of it will surely pass them by. However, there is no known cure for the press; they have left it [???] to the journalists, pampered though they be by kings and statesmen, to come to terms with their ignorance as best they can. It is clear that the Riemann school in Germany is not going to be drawn. Things have almost got to such a pass that anyone who dares to use the notational system and clefs is guilty of plagiarizing Riemann. The latter has gone so far as to accuse the late Thuille3 publicly of “unfair competition” because he had some point or other in common with him—and misunderstood it, into the bargain. Riemann has already made such accusations several times. All of this is of course immaterial to me. I shall very shortly be sending you vol. II, Counterpoint, {2} which by reason of its subject matter looks much more like an actual textbook than does vol. I. Thus in the foreseeable future the capstone, The Decline of Composition, as volume III (not “Afterword,” as earlier planned)4, will be in a position to determine the impact of the New Theories and Fantasies. I am firmly convinced that vol. III will not have been written in vain. Fortunately, the printing of vol. II might very well go more smoothly, so that I will not lose much time over it. With kind regards, © Translation Ian D. Bent 2005. |
COMMENTARY: FOOTNOTES: 1 OJ 12/27, [5]. 2 Harmonielehre, published November 10, 1906. 3 Ludwig Thuille (1861–1907), Austrian composer, professor at the Königliche Musikschule in Munich: “late,” because his death had occurred seven months earlier, on February 5, 1907, the same year in which he and his co-author Rudolf Louis had published their Harmonielehre (Stuttgart: Carl Grüninger), against which Riemann had laid charges of plagiarism. The relevant items (with thanks to Alexander Rehding for this information) are: Riemann, Hugo: "Eine neue Harmonielehre: Harmonielehre von Rudolf Louis u. Ludwig Thuille," Süddeutsche Monatshefte 4 (1907), p. 500. Louis, Rudolf: "Zu Hugo Riemanns Besprechung der Louis-Thuilleschen Harmonielehre," Süddeutsche Monatshefte 4 (1907), p. 614. For a reappraisal of this interchange, see Ludwig Holtmeier in Helga de la Motte-Haber/Oliver Schwab-Felisch: Musiktheorie (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 2005). --Once again, Schenker shows how up-to-date he is! 4 Nachwort (Afterword) was originally intended for inclusion within the Harmonielehre (CA 5–6, November 22, 1905; OJ 9/31, [4], December 5, 1905; CA 9, December 19, 1905) but was re-designated as a separate publication when its size increased 5- to 7-fold (CA 25, May 29, 1906; OJ 9/31, [8], May 31, 1906, initially entitled perhaps '“_Beethoven_ oder Wagner?”: ein Nachwort zu den Musikalischen Theorien und Phantasien‘ ("Beethoven or Wagner?”: An Afterword to the Musical Theories and Fantasies ); CA 31, June 30, 1906; CA 41–42, October 1, 1906). The separate work was announced in the Vorwort (Foreword) to the Harmonielehre (p.VII), giving its new title as Über den Niedergang der Kompositionskunst,—eine technisch-kritische Untersuchung (On the Decline of the Art of Composition: a technical-critical Inquiry). It was planned to appear six months after Harmonielehre itself (i.e. May 1907): CA 44, October 6, 1906. SUMMARY: © Commentary, Footnotes, Summary Ian D. Bent 2005.
|
|