« OJ 5/16, [3] : 11-9-09 | Main | WSLB 47 (Excpt) : 11-9-09 »

WSLB 47 : 11-9-09

Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated Nov 9, 1909

Wien, 9. 11. 09

Sehr geehrter Herr Direktor!

Den Zahnarzt habe ich allerdings seit Freitag hinter mir,1 kann aber trotzdem Ihrem Wunsche nicht entsprechen.2 Erstens bin ich mitten in wichtigen Arbeiten, die keinen Aufschub zulassen,3 u. ich kann es als bestimmt voraussagen, daß ich vor Erscheinen des 1. Halbbandes vom “Kontrapunkt” kaum überflüssige Exkursionen zu machen in der Lage sein werde. Bis dahin wenigstens ersuche ich Sie daher, mich als einem Mitarbeiter zu betrachten, der irgendwo im Ausland, z.B. in Amsterdam, Paris etc. wohnt, u. somit nur brieflich zu erreichen ist. Ich weiß zwar, daß ich mich im Widerspruch mit der Wiener Sitte befinde, wenn ich den Zeitverlust eines geistig arbeitenden Menschen ebenso hoch einschätze, wie den irgend eines Beamten mit festen Bureaustunden, dennoch bitte ich Sie, sich mit dieser meiner persönlichen Anschauung u. Praxis endlich befreunden zu wollen.

Aber selbst wenn dieses gewichtige Hindernis nicht vorläge, würde ich mich noch immer bestimmt fühlen aus Gründen, die vielleicht noch ernsterer Natur sind, die gewünschte Konferenz mit Ihnen u. H. v. Wöss|4 höflichst abzulehnen. Denn ich schließe aus der Nichterfühlung meiner Bitte, die “Kleinigkeiten”5 {2} brieflich zu prezisieren, daß nicht rein drucktechnische Angelegenheiten hier in Frage kommen, sondern wohl wieder, u. zw. eben schon zum 2. Mal, eine Kontrolle meiner Arbeit beabsichtigt wird. Ich schätze persönlich H. v. Wöss als einen der liebenswürdigsten u. honettesten Musiker, die ich kenne, – u. das will bei mir wahrhaftig viel sagen; – aber seinen Charakter u. alle seine Kenntnisse in Ehren, kann ich dennoch unmöglich zulassen, daß ihm statt mir als dem Autor die Priorität der Korrektur zufalle. Das wäre höchstens xx dann zulässig, wenn es sich um eine unverlangte, angebotene Arbeit handelte, was aber die beiden letzten Male durchaus nicht der Fall gewesen ist.

Es kann sich ja schließlich nur um zweierlei handeln, entweder um einen etwaigen Lapsus, oder um abweichende Ansichten. Ist das erstere der Fall, dann habe ich ja als Autor vor mir noch die Korrektur, Revision, Superrev., so daß mir bei den 3-maligen Durchsicht ein Lapsus wohl kaum entgehen könnte. Es dürfte auch H. v. Wöss bekannt sein, daß wohlgemerkt selbst das Hauptmotiv (!!) der V. Symph. von Beethoven noch in der Originalpartitur (also nicht blos in den Skizzen!) eine andere Gestalt aufweist, als in der endgültigen Veröffentlichung. Und warum sollte ich wenige Rechte, als z.B. Mommsen, oder Tolstoi,6 die an ihren Korrekturen unablässig gefeilt haben.

Was aber etwaiger abweichende Ansichten anbetrifft, so habe ich folgends zu {3} bemerken.

Bedenke ich, daß weder Harden (”Zukunft”) noch Bahr (“Zeit”), weder Wengraf (“Neue Revue”) noch Fritsch (”Mus. Wochenbl.”),7 weder Br. & H. noch Simrock, weder Weinberger noch Doblinger, weder Cotta noch die "U.E._” selbst8 [ _dash del. ] bis eben auf die letzten Fälle (u. welche Ironie: gerade die beiden letzten waren aus Ihrem persönlichen Vertrauen erflossene Bestellungen !)9 ja meine Ansichten vor oder nach den Korrekturen einer Kontrolle unterworfen haben, so muß ich über die neuere Praxis Ihres Institutes mich wahrlich doch wundern. Ich habe in der gegenwärtigen Arbeit mit Absicht u. wohlüberlegt die Leistungen der bisherigen Herausgeber Revue passieren lassen,10 ebenso mit Absicht die Klavierspieler einer Kritik unterzogen11 u. selbst die weitestgehende Umständlichkeit steht kaum im richtigen Verhältnis zur Schwere der Versündigungen an unseren Meistern in der Vergangenheit u. der Gegenwart! Wenn ich beispielsweise eine Lesart von Reinecke zurückweise u. hiefür — was die anderen Herausgeber zu machen ja nicht einmal fähig sind! — die künstlerischen Gründe beigebe, so führt dies jedermann, der das Heft in die Hand nimmt, ungleich mehr zu dem besprochenen Werke, als wenn z.B. H. Dalcroze die “chrom. Fant.” tanzen ließe,12 oder H. Busoni daneben Sexten-Etuden,13 [ del ] (die mit dem “Wohltemperirten Klavier” nichts zu tun haben) schreibt, u. ich wette, Sie haben gegen letztere keinen Einwand erhoben u. Busoni kaum aus Berlin herzitiert.

{4} Was aber die Virtuosen anbelangt, so richtet sich meine Kritik gegen ihr allzu mangelhaftes Erfassen des geistigen Inhaltes eines Bach’schen Werkes u. das damit zusammenhängende falsche Reproduzieren desselben (o hätten Sie doch nur am 6. d.M. z.B. H. Backhaus|14 gehört, wie er Beethoven u. Bach maltraitierte, um sich erst bei Liszt zurecht zu finden!); u. meine Kritik geht keineswegs weiter als z.B. diejenige, die Alfred [ corr ] v. Berger in seiner kürzlich veröffentlichten “Hamburgischen Dramaturgie” [ corr ] (Ost. Rundschau,–d.M.) gegen die “berühmesten” Schauspieler richtet. (Sie könnten “nicht mehr sprechen,” meint er!)15

Wollen Sie mir vielleicht erwidern, Busoni u. Berger hätten Weltruf, ich aber keinen? Nun, ich neide Niemandem die tausend Eselsohren, die zuhören, die tausend Hände, die patschen, u. bin desto glücklicher im Besitze von künstlerischen Gründe, die z.B. Busoni gar nicht bekannt sind. Auch bin ich außerdem der festen Überzeugung, daß Weltruf, zumal heutzutage, nicht nützt, wenn die Grundlage nur wenig solid ist.

Zwar verfolge ich mit meinen Kritiken selbstverständlich in erster Linie die Restituierung des geistigen Wertes der Meisterwerke (wie froh bin ich doch, daß mich mindestens Cotta nicht daran hindert!), indessen ist damit ja unzertrennlich verbunden auch die Hebung des materiellen Wertes dieser Stücken, was ja für Sie, wie ich das schon mündlich hervorzuheben Gelegenheit [ smudge ] {5} hatte, von nicht zu unterschätzender Bedeutung ist. Wer wird z.B. nach der Vorführung der Novität des I. philh. Konz. (14. d.M.) in der misverständlichen Auffassung Schalk’s16 überhaupt noch Lust finden, dieses Werk zu kaufen, u. doch steckt in dieser Suite von Bach, die dort nun zum 1. Male nach zwei Jahrhunderten aufgeführt wird, auch ein ganz ansehnlicher kommerzieller Wert!

In allen diesen Dingen darf es von Haus aus keine Sentimentalität geben, u. ich muß aus den angeführten u. noch anderen Gründen selbst auf der Art meines Vortrags beharren. Ich decke ja meine Ansichten, mögen sie noch so heftig zed...[?] ausgesprochen sein, schließlich mit meinem Namen, u. es steht nichts im Wege, daß H. v. Wöss seine Anschauungen ebenfalls, ev. in Ihrem Verlage, selbstständig vertrete.

Ich kann vielleicht unter den obwaltenden Umständen froh sein, im Besitze mindestens des vertragsmäßigen Honorars zu sein, es hätte sich sonst[ corr ] vielleicht wiederholt, daß ich für eine bestellte Arbeit, weil sie nicht im Einklange ist mit den Ansichten der Leitung, einfach nicht entlohnt wurde. Ich habe eben aus diesem Anlaß jenes Mnscrp. nochmals durchgesehen, u. finde mich veranlaßt, aufs Bestimmteste zu erklären, daß ich nur diese eigene Einleitung für den bestmöglichen u. kürzesten Auszug einer Instrumentenlehre halte u. daher auch niemals eine andere für jene Tabelle gestatten werde.17 {6} Sie vergessen, daß ich kein Tabellenverfertiger von Beruf bin, u. daß ich offenbar ein stärkeres Interesse hatte; Sie vergessen, daß Sie zunächst nichts dagegen hatten, in der Vorrede den 3. Absatz18 drucken zu lassen u. im Dienste diese Absatzes, trotzdem das System es eigentlich doch anders gefordert hätte, neben das Naturhorn sofort das V.H. [=Ventilhorn] zu setzten, (Nu. 30, 31),19 u. doch haben Sie gerade jene Anmerkung (obendrein mit Perldruck!!), die in diesem Absatz angekündigt war, mit den Worten kritisiert: “ich hätte mich in Gedanken verloren.” Es wird Sie vielleicht interessieren zu erfahren, daß z.B. Dr. Rob. Hirschfeld nichts so sehr vermißt hat, als die Klarstellung jenes Punktes, wo man mich eben in meiner eigenen Tabelle — nicht zu Worte ließ!20 An die Adresse des H. v. Wöss aber, dessen Kritik mich eben um das Honorar für eine bestellte Arbeit gebracht,21 möchte ich noch folgendes richten: das Thema, worin ich mich angeblich ”verloren” hatte, wurde bereits einmal von mir unter dem Titel: “Beethoven-Retouche” in einer Weihnachtsbeilage vor Jahren behandelt,22 u. zw. über Aufforderung Dr. Rb. Hirschfeld’s, dessen ortodoxestes Wagnertum ja genügend bekannt ist,—ein Aufsatz, der seither mehrfach citiert wurde. Außerdem möge es nur z.B. Kretschmar’s so populären “Führer durch den Konzertsaal” (auch bei Br. & H.), oder bei GroveBeeth. u. seine 9 Symph.” bei Novello, London, deutsche Übertragung, S.6623 u.s.w. nachsehen, {7} u. er wird erfahren, daß Wagner die berühmte Hornstelle im 1. Satze der III. Symph. (knapp vor Eintritt der Reprise ) so schwer, wie nur irgend einer der elendesten Kapellmeister verkannte, eine dumme Korrektur vornahm, von der die Welt erst abgieng, nachdem die durch Nottebohm publizierten Skizzen von Beeth. unwiderleglich das Gegenteil erwiesen haben! Nachdem auch Dummköpfe wie Mahler,24 Weingartner,25 Mottl|26 ausgerechnet Beeth. zu korrigieren sich anmaßen, statt ihre eigenen Sachen — in der Literatur wurde wohl Niemand wagen, Goethe zu ändern! — gebot es der Schutz der Originalpartitur auf diese Sache auch in der Tabelle —zurückzukommen, wo ich die Natur des Horns, des Naturhorns, darzustellen hatte.

Nun genug. Ich bitte also nochmals um briefliche Erörterung Ihrer “Kleinigkeiten.” Eventuell Vermerke mit Bleistift, oder dgl.

Mit ausgez Hochachtung – verbleibe ich
Ihr ergb
[ sign'd: ]H Schenker

© Heirs of Heinrich Schenker.
© Transcription Ian D. Bent 2005.

Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated Nov 9, 1909

Vienna,.November 9, 1909

Dear Director,

At least since Friday I have the dentist out of the way;1 nevertheless, I cannot comply with your wishes.2 Firstly, I am in the throes of important tasks that will admit of no delay,3 and I can predict that before the first half-volume of Kontrapunkt appears I shall hardly be in a position to leave the house unnecessarily. Accordingly, until then at least I ask you to think of me as if I were a colleague who lives abroad somewhere or other, e.g. in Amsterdam, Paris, etc., and can consequently be reached only by letter. I realize, for sure, that I am at odds with Viennese custom in considering loss of time on the part of a person who works intellectually as great as that on the part of any official with fixed office hours, nevertheless I beg you finally please to reconcile yourself to this personal outlook and practice of mine.

But even if this were not a weighty obstacle in our way, I would still not budge in declining the desired meeting with you and Mr. von Wöß,4 and this on grounds that are perhaps even more serious in nature. For, from the fact that my request to have the “details”5 {2} set out in a letter has not been fullfilled, I deduce that this is not about purely technical printing issues but rather—and this is the second time this has happened—that you are trying to exert control over the work that I do. I personally respect Mr. von Wöß as one of the nicest and most honest musicians that I know—and coming from me that is really saying a lot—; however, with all due respect to his character and his wealth of knowledge, I cannot, even so, possibly allow priority over proof-correcting to fall to him rather than to me as the author. That would be acceptable only in the case of an unsolicited, freely offered piece of work, which was absolutely not the case in the last two instances.

It can after all be only one of two things: either some kind of slip, or a difference of opinion. Were it the former, then as author I have to hand the [first] proofs, the revised proofs, [and] the final set of proofs, so a slip could hardly have escaped me in my three passes through them. Mr. von Wöß must surely be aware that the main motive (!!) of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony even as late as the original score (not merely in the sketches, that is!) takes a different form from that in the final publication. And why should I have fewer rights than, e.g., Mommsen, or Tolstoy,6 who continued to make refinements throughout their proof-correcting.

As for any differences of opinion, let me {3} say the following.

When I think that neither Harden (Die Zukunft) nor Bahr (Die Zeit), neither Wengraf (Neue Revue) nor Frit[z]sch (Musikalisches Wochenblatt),7 neither Breitkopf & Härtel nor Simrock, neither Weinberger nor Doblinger, neither Cotta nor UE itself,8 right up to our latest dealings (and what an irony: these last two were precisely orders that resulted from your personal confidence [in me(?)]!9) have ever exerted control over my views, before or after proof-stage, then I must say I am really and truly astonished at your company’s more recent practise. In my present work, I have reviewed the products of previous editors meticulously and judiciously,10 have subjected pianists to a critique of equal meticulousness,11 and even the wordiest [of these critiques] is hardly proportionate to the gravity of the sins [committed] against our masters in the past and present! If, for example, I reject a reading by Reinecke, and supply the artistic reasons for this—something that the other editors are totally incapable of doing!—then this guides anyone who picks up my volume to the work under discussion vastly more than when, for example, Mr. Dalcroze has people dance to the Chromatic Fantasy [& Fugue],12 or Mr. Busoni writes Studies in Sixths to it13 (which has nothing to do with the Well-tempered Clavier), and I wager you have not raised any objection to the latter and have hardly summoned Busoni back from Berlin.

{4} But as regards the virtuosos, my critique is aimed at their woefully deficient grasp of the intellectual content of a Bach’s work and the false representation of it that they give as a result (oh, if only you had, for example, heard on the 6th of this month how Mr. Backhaus14 maltreated Beethoven and Bach, finding his way only when he reached Liszt!). Nor does my critique go any further than, e.g., that of Alfred von Berger in his recently published Hamburgische Dramaturgie (Ost. Rundschau,–d.M.) directed against the “most famous” actors. (They can, in his opinion, “no longer speak”!)15

Might you not counter by saying that Busoni and Berger are world-famous, whereas I am not? Well, I envy no one the thousand asses’ ears that hear [them], the thousand hands than clap [them], and am far happier in possessing artistic reasons, of which, e.g., Busoni knows nothing whatsoever. What is more, I am firmly convinced that worldwide fame, especially these days, is of no use if its foundations are unsound.

To be sure, with my critiques I am of course working first and foremost toward the restoration of the spiritual value of our masterworks (how very happy I am that at least Cotta puts no obstacles to this in my way!); inseparable from this also, however, is the raising of the material value of these pieces, and for you this is, as I already {5} had occasion to point out in conversation, certainly not of inconsiderable significance. For example, after the presentation of the novelty of the first Philharmonic concert (14th of this month) in Schalk’s misleading interpretation,16 who will still have the slightest desire to purchase this work; and yet on this Suite by Bach, performed here now for the first time after two centuries, a handsome commercial value is actually to be placed.

In all these things there has to be no shred of sentimentality, and I must myself, for reasons already given, and others as well, persist in my method of presentation. I defend my views, however forcefully they may be stated, ultimately with my name, and there is nothing to stop Mr von Wöss likewise representing his views independently, even in your publishing house.

Under prevailing circumstances, I can perhaps at least be thankful that I am in possession of the honorarium agreed in my contract; if not, it might perhaps have been reiterated that I would simply not be remunerated for a piece of commissioned work, because it is not in accordance with the views of the management. For this reason, I have just gone through that manuscript once again, and find myself compelled to declare in no uncertain terms that I consider this particular introduction to be the best possible and most concise outline of a theory of instruments, and will accordingly never entertain any other for that Table.17 {6} You are forgetting that I am not by trade a designer of tables, and that I clearly had a keener interest. You are forgetting that you had no objection at first to printing the 3rd paragraph of the Foreword,18 and in keeping with this paragraph, despite that fact that the system would in fact expressly have called for it differently, to placing the valve horn immediately next to the natural horn (Nos. 30, 31),19 and yet that is the very comment (in small type, into the bargain!!), communicated in this paragraph, that you criticized with the words that “I had got confused.” It may perhaps interest you to learn, for example, that Dr. Robert Hirschfeld misses nothing so much as the clarification of that point, where even in my own table I was not allowed—to put it into words!20 But I should also like to draw the following to the attention of Mr. von Wöß, whose criticism in fact deprived me of my honorarium for a commissioned task:21 the theme in which I have allegedly “got confused” has already been discussed by me years ago under the title “’Alterations’ of Beethoven” in a Christmas supplement,22 and, what is more, at the request of Dr. Robert Hirschfeld, whose ultra-orthodox Wagnerianism is more than well enough known,—an article that has been cited many times since then. Moreover, one need only take a look at, for example, Kretzschmar’s so popular Führer durch den Konzertsaal (also by Breitkopf & Härtel), or at Grove: Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies published by Novello, London, German translation p.66,23 etc., {7} to discover that Wagner made an idiotic correction to the famous horn passage in the first movement of the Third Symphony (right before the entry of the Recapitulation) as flagrant as only one of the most wretched of Kapellmeisters could have committed, and which the world did not abandon until the sketches by Beethoven that Nottebohm published gave incontrovertible evidence to the contrary! Since fools like Mahler,24 Weingartner,25 [and] Mottl26 also consider themselves up to correcting Beethoven, instead of looking to their own affairs—in literature, absolutely no one dared to alter Goethe!—it was imperative even in the Table to resort to the surety of the original score on this matter, where I had presented the nature of the horn, of the natural horn.

But enough of this. So once again I ask you for an account of your “details” in writing. Perhaps jottings in pencil, or something similar.

With kind regards, I remain,
Yours truly,
[ sign'd: ] H. Schenker

© Translation Ian D. Bent 2005.

COMMENTARY:
Format: 7-p letter, horizontal format, holograph message and signature
Sender address: --
Recipient address: --

FOOTNOTES:

1 See WSLB 45, October 27, and WSLB 46, October 30, where S uses inflammation of the peristeum as reason for being unavailable for a meeting, and OC 52/45, November 5, H’s response.

2 i.e. those expressed in OC 52/45, November 5.

3 S was evidently at galley-proof stage on his Kontrapunkt [I].

4 Click on Josef Venantius von Wöß. S got the spelling wrong (Weß) in the draft, OJ 5/167, [3], but has it right here.

5 This quotes from OC 52/40 41 (Oct 26), which asks for a meeting, then says: “The Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue is finally about to go for printing, and we have a few details to discuss with you regarding it.” S’s request appears in WSLB 46 (Oct 30).

6 Theodor Mommsen (1817–1903), German historian and writer, received Nobel Prize for Literature in 1902; Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910), great Russian novelist.

7 Maximilian Harden (1861–1927), German political journalist, founder of Die Zukunft (1892–1923), for which S himself wrote reviews 1892–97; Hermann Bahr (1863–1934), major Austrian author and playwright, joint editor with Isidor Singer and Heinrich Kanner of Die Zeit (Vienna), to which S contributed articles in 1895–96; Neue Revue (Vienna), edited Heinrich Osten and Edmund Wengraf, to which S contributed articles in 1894–98; , Ernst Wilhelm Fritzsch, German publisher of the Musikalisches Wochenblatt (Leipzig, 1870–1910), to which S contributed reviews and articles (including his “Der Geist der musikalischen Technik”) in 1891–95: See Federhofer: Heinrich Schenker als Essayist und Kritiker ..., p.XII for these editors and journals, and for texts of all the articles concerned; see also Nicholas Rast, “A Checklist of Essays and Reviews by Heinrich Schenker,” Music Analysis 7/2 (July 1988), 121–132.

8 These are all publishers with whom Schenker published either his compositions, his editions, or his works of music theory.

9 Perhaps S means here his last two contracted works with UE, the edition of J. S. Bach, Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue, at this time in press, and the Instrumentations-Tabelle, of which the first public edition had been released in February 1909, and of which a new edition with extensive additional material was under consideration (and eventually released in 1912).

10 i.e. his editing work on the Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue. The editions collated are von Bülow (Bote & Bock, 1859–65), Reinecke (Breitkopf und Härtel, 1871–83), Bischoff (Steingräber, 1880–88), Naumann/Bach-Gesellschaft (Breitkopf und Härtel, 1890), Ruthard (Peters, 1894), Röntgen (UE, c.1901), and Busoni (Simrock 1902).

11 Presumably he means in his music criticisms, 1891–1901.

12 Emile Jacques-Dalcroze (1865–1950), Swiss music educationalist whose Méthode Jacques-Dalcroze had recently been published (Paris, 1906–07), 3 vols, vol. I entitled “Rhythmic Gymnastics.”

13 Unclear what is referred to. The draft implies that these studies have nothing to do with the Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue (“mit der Sache nichts zu tun haben”), whereas the finished letter states explicitly “which has nothing to do with the Well-tempered Clavier_”. Busoni’s edition of the _WTC, done for Breitkopf und Härtel in 1894, was issued by UE in 1909. UE also issued Busoni’s Fantasia nach J. S. Bach in 1909. Busoni’s arrangement of the Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue was not published until 1911.

14 Wilhelm Backhaus [create biogfile]

15 Alfred Maria Julius, Freiherr von Berger, Die Hamburgische Dramaturgie (Ost. Rundschau,–d.M.), later published Vienna, 1910.

16 The concert took place on November 14, 1909, at 12:30 pm, the program comprising: J.S.Bach: Suite in D major for three trumpets, timpani, three oboes, bassoon, and string orchestra (first performance in the Philharmonic Concerts), Mozart: Symphony in E flat, KV 543, Beethoven: Symphony No. 8 in F major. The conductor, Franz Schalk (1863–1931), Austrian, “became first conductor at the Vienna Court Opera in 1900, under Mahler’s directorship”. He was a pupil of Bruckner and championed his symphonies. (NGDM) [Thanks to the Vienna Philharmonic Society Archive Department for this information.]

17 There is some confusion here. H wished to speak with S about the Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue. It is not clear whether S has forgotten this, or is referring now to one of the “two most recent dealings” alluded to earlier.

18 The paragraph reads as follows:
“Our table goes far beyond what a table of this sort usually offers, in that, in addition, it takes on literary pretentions by injecting a slant of its own, especially where the treatment of individual instruments such as for example that of the natural horn and of the passages cited from the repertory in general are concerned, in seeking to rectify commonly-held, and consequently unfortunate misunderstandings concerning the use of the horn in the Classical repertory and strives to bring out the step-by-step entry of the individual instruments into the symphonic repertory.”

19 Nos. 27–9 are the natural horns in high Bb, high A, and high G, No.30 the natural horn in F, No.31 the valve-horn in F.

20 Schenker had had words with Hirschfeld about the Instrumentation Table, e.g. diary, OJ 1/7, pp.92–93 (“speaks all the more harshly about details of the _Table_”). Click on: Robert Hirschfeld.

21 S perhaps suspects that vW was behind H’s rejection (OC 52/399–401, December 18, 1908) of the additional materials that S supplied for the _Instrumentation Table_—“commissioned” is too strong a work, but the material was certainly invited by H.

22 Schenker, “Beethoven-‘Retouche’”, Wiener Abendpost (Beilage zur Wiener Zeitung), January 9, 1901, pp.6–7. See Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker als Essayist und Kritiker ..., pp.259–68. Hirschfeld was music critic of the Wiener Abendpost, so presumably “requested” it. The article concerns Wagner’s attitudes toward, and alterations of, Beethoven’s orchestral use of instruments, dwelling especially on the horn part in the first movement of the Eroica Symphony, and the notes available on the natural horn.

23 See the English original, p.66, footnote, which concerns alterations made to this passage.

24 Click on Gustav Mahler.

25 Click on: Felix Weingartner.

26 Felix Mottl [create biogfile]

SUMMARY:
[J. S. Bach: Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue and Niloff: Instrumentations-Tabelle:] S is unavailable for a meeting with H and von Wöß because (a) work-time is too precious, (b) he suspects vW of seeking to impose unacceptable editorial "control" upon his work. S asserts authorial priority, and defends quality of his work. None of his previous editors or publishers has exerted such control. The principal topics are "virtuosos," natural and valve horns, and alterations to Beethoven. Compares UE unfavorably to Cotta. Mahler, Weingartner, and Mottl are "fools" for correcting Beethoven.

© Commentary, Footnotes, Summary Ian D. Bent 2005.

Bent, Ian
Schenker, Heinrich
[J. S. Bach: Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue and Niloff: Instrumentations-Tabelle:] S is unavailable for a meeting with H and von Wöß because (a) work-time is too precious, (b) he suspects vW of seeking to impose unacceptable editorial "control" upon his work. S asserts authorial priority, and defends quality of his work. None of his previous editors or publishers has exerted such control. The principal topics are "virtuosos," natural and valve horns, and alterations to Beethoven. Compares UE unfavorably to Cotta. Mahler, Weingartner, and Mottl are "fools" for correcting Beethoven.
DE
Cambridge University Faculty of Music-Ian Bent
IPR: Heirs of Heinrich Schenker; Transcription, Translation, Commentary, Footnotes, and Summary: Ian D. Bent 2005.
Schenker, Heinrich; Hertzka, Emil; UE; Wöß, Josef Venantius von; Kontrapunkt; Counterpoint; Amsterdam; Paris; Vienna; editorial control; authorial priority; Beethoven; Fifth Symphony; original score; sketches; Mommsen, Theodor; Tolstoy, Leo; Harden, Maximilian; Die Zukunft; Bahr, Hermann; Die Zeit; Wengraf, Edmund; Neue Revue; Fritzsch, E. W.; Musikalisches Wochenblatt; Breitkopf & Härtel; Simrock; Weinberger; Doblinger; Eroica Symphony; Reinecke, Carl; Dalcroze, Emile Jacques-; Busoni, Ferruccio; Bach, J. S.; Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue; Niloff; Instrumentations-Tabelle; Instrumentation Table; Berlin; Backhaus, Wilhelm; virtuoso; Liszt; Berger, Alfred von; Cotta, J. G.; Schalk, Josef; Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra; honorarium; natural horn; valve horn; Hirschfeld, Robert; Retouche; Wagner; Kretzschmar, Hermann; Grove, George; Novello; London; Wagner, Richard; Mahler, Gustav; Weingartner, Felix; Mottl, Felix; Goethe
Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated November 9, 1909
letter
academic; musicology; music theory
WSLB 47
1909-11-09
2006-01-30
UE
Hertzka
All reasonable steps have been taken to locate the heirs of Heinrich Schenker. Any claim to intellectual rights on this document should be addressed to the Schenker Correspondence Project, Faculty of Music, University of Cambridge, at schenkercorrespondence@mus.cam.ac.uk.
letter; holograph message and signature
Universal Edition Archive (1909-1976)—on permanent loan to the Stadt- und Landesbibliothek Wien (1976-)
IPR: Heirs of Heinrich Schenker; Image: Universal Edition, A.G.; Transcription, Translation, Commentary, Footnotes, and Summary: Ian D. Bent.
Vienna
1909

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 9, 1909 1:02 AM.

The previous post in this blog was OJ 5/16, [3] : 11-9-09.

The next post in this blog is WSLB 47 (Excpt) : 11-9-09.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.34