« OC 52/386 : 3-23-01 | Main | OJ 13/27, [2] : 4-22-01 »

NMI C 176-01 : 4-13-01

Handwritten letter from Schenker to Julius Röntgen, dated April 13, 1901

Wien, den 13 April 1901

Verehrtester u lieber Herr Professor!1

Für Ihre Zusage der Mitarbeiterschaft besten Dank! Hoffentlich sind[corr] Sie mit Weinberger & Comp.2 auch handelseins geworden: ich sah W. seit jener Stunde nicht mehr, u. weiss um das Ende der Sache daher gar nichts. Sie dürfen sich, wenn Sie sagen, dass, was Sie zu leisten haben, Ihr geistiges Eigentum sei [in höherem Sinne, als gewöhnliche Leistungen der allzuvielen Herausgeber)3 auch ein höheres Honorar, als das usuelle, ausbedingen. Und Weinberger wird es auch gewähren. Wenigstens werde ich es so halten mit der Ausgabe von C. [P.] E. Bach, die ich zu leisten versprochen.4 Ich weiss wahrhaftig nicht, soll ich mehr mich fürchten vor der Riesenarbeit, oder freuen auf das viele Schöne. Kennen Sie die Sonate Fdur {2} im Br&H.’s Urtext die zweite? Wie unendlich fein, u. ganz im Gegensatz zu den modernen Haupt- u. Seitensatzschreibern so frei u. überreich, so mannigfaltig sich darstellend! Wer schreibt heute so genial, wie gleich im T. 4 des ersten Satzes das letzte Achtel? Wie himmlisch geht das hinüber, kommend, gehend, wie eine leichte Muskelbewegung, ein Zucken nur! Nichts ist dick, nichts grob, kein Grund aufgedonnert, – Wille u. Ausführung, beide zart functionirend, herrlich!

Dass Bülow5 diese Sonate weglassen konnte, wäre mir unbegreiflich, hätte ich nicht den Drang, ihn eher etwas tiefer, als höher zu schätzen. Und habe ich Ihr [alt from Ihre] reizendes Bülowpamphlet[corr] verstanden, so scheinen auch Sie ihn weniger zu verhimmeln, weniger ernst zu nehmen, als die grosse, namengierige Menge. Bei dieser Gelegenheit möchte ich Ihnen wohl sagen, dass auch Brahms ihn nicht überschätzte: war doch Br. derjenige, der den Furor Teutonicus gedämpft hat, als die Ger- {3} manen nach Bülow’s Tode ein Nationaldenkmal verlangten. Ich kam damals, im Auftrage Harden’s aus Berlin,6 zu Brahms, u. er sagte: „Ach, was! ich habe Geld u. Mitwirkung zugesagt, aber nur für ein Friedhofsdenkmal in Hamburg. Mehr verdient B. nicht; er war jar nur ein Kapellmeister! Hat denn schon Wagner ein denkmal? u.s.w.” Wie schön, dass Br. trotz allem Dankgefühl so was zu sagen Muth hatte. Es ging dann auch nach seiner Meinung, die denkmalsfrage.

Und nun noch einige Worte zu meiner Sendung an Sie, die ich Ihnen versprochen. Ich bitte Sie um Ihr Interesse für die Invention No 2, auf die ich sehr stolz bin.7 Sie ist sogar ziemlich rasch, ich meine passionirt, gedacht, sehr ausdrucksvoll! Hier ist es hauptsächlich, wo ich das Moderne brachte. Es würde mich sehr freuen, wenn diese Inv. Ihnen gefallen wollte.

Dagegen zweifle ich gar nicht, – so fest überzeugt bin ich davon, u. sage es dennoch mit aller Bescheidenheit, die mir vor mir selbst u. vor Ihnen doch zukommt, – dass Ihnen unter {4} den Liedern ein einziges gefallen muss, ja, gefallen muss: „Der Ausklang”.8 Damit hat es übrigens eine düstere, unheimliche Bewandtnis. Denken Sie: Prof. Gärtner,9 der heuer einen Liederabend der „Jungen”, mit Einschluss R. Strauss’, gab ([corr]etwa 14–16 Lieder vortrug von 8–10 Autoren), wollte zwei Lieder von mir singen: unter allen Umständen das “Wiegenliedchen”,10 weil es ihm besonders durch dass pp, u. sonst angenehm lag, u. überdies ein angenehmes Gegengewicht gegen die übrigen Novitäten bot, die, wie schon heute einmal usus, allen Liedstyl sprengten, die Stimmbänder in Fetzen rissen, Tonarten u. Tonalitäten für überwunden erklärten, u – ausserdem noch den obergenanten „Ausklang”. Nun fügte es sich, dass er mehr Lieder seines Accompagnateurs, H. v. Zemlinsky,11 singen müsste, weil dieser in nächster Woche, in seiner Eigenschaft als Capellmeister am Carltheater die Operette Gärtner’s zu dirigiren hatte, – „eine Hand wäscht die andere”, u. er konnte nur das „Wiegen- {5} liedchen” singen, womit er, nebenbei gesagt, fast den besten Erfolg der Abends hatte . .

Nun aber, – hier setzt eine Tragik ein – denken Sie: am selben Abend des Concertes, fast auf die Stunde, auf die Minute genau, in der Gärtner mich vortrug, starb in Berlin der umgemein [recte: ungemein] sympatische Dichter der “Leuchtenden Tage”, der Autor des “Ausklangs” in Alter von nicht 32 Jahren!!12 Hätte Gärtner um diese Minute den “Ausklang” gesungen, wie eigentümlich wäre diese Zusammentreffen gewesen!

O! Lesen Sie Jakobowskis Gedichtsammlung. Ein so reiner, liebevoller Mensch! Ein ergreifendes Naturell.

Aus Allem Eingesandten aber werden Sie ersehen, dass es mir kein Spass ist, mit Enharmonik u Chromatik umzuspringen, so, wie man es gerne in kindischester Weise heute thut. Die Ursache alles heutigen Treibens ist meiner Ansicht nach wohl die: {6} Keiner hat ein so geniales Tonartgefühl, keine so geniale Mannigfaltigkeit der Erfindung u. was dasselbe Mannigfaltigkeit der Form, um so schreiben zu können, wie z. B. sagen wir: Schumann im Intermezzo op. 4 No 5, wo erst im Takt 20-21nach langer, schönster Fdur-haltung! – die eigentliche D-moll Tonica, u. zwar sich bereits einen anderen Motiv unterstellend, erscheint!

Und zunächst pp! Erst im T. 29 ff, Dmoll, das Achtelmotiv ff u. drüber hin aber eine neue Ballade aus Dm. – – Oder Brahms’ Gmoll Rhapsodie, die Sie so schön spielen:13 Erst im T. 9 erscheint die Tonica G(dur) (u. wie versteckt!) im T. 11 endlich die eigentliche Tonica Gm! Was ging der Alles voraus! Wie ging es zur Tonica hin! Ohne viel Federlesens dann auch von der Tonart weg nach Dm!

Und ein genialstes Beispiel der Enharmonik aus der Em Sonate Beethoven’s,14 im ersten Satz etwa T. 37 u ff. {7} Dieses b, dieses Bdur!!!

Und so meine ich: die meisten von heute müssen, da ihre Talentlosigkeit vor der Kunst sich leider nicht in Talent verwandeln will, u. sich doch etwas verändern muss rastlos in der Kunst, wenn nicht scheussliche Langeweile eintreten soll, eben die Töne raschestens verwandeln u. verändern. Wenn sie selbst in Erfindung u. Talent monoton, so sollen die Töne desto mehr sich verändern u. desto rascher, um die Monotonie des Autors nicht zu verrathen.

Ich halte fest daran: Tonart, Tonalität, Modulation, Chromatik, Enharmonik dürfe man Kindern nicht in die Hand geben, ebensowenig als Feuer. Das ist ja kein Spass. Und vor Allem Synthese! die muss Geist in jedem Winkel haben, u. desto schöner, je weniger auffallend, aufdringlich, je stylvoller!15

Zum Schluss, verehrter, lieber H. Professor noch Eins: Sollte Prof. Mes[s]chaert16 gelegentlich Lust haben, den “Ausklang” zu singen (nur bei aufrichtigster Ge- {8} sinnung natürlich!), so wird, hoffe ich, H. Gutmann17 keine Schwierigkeiten machen. Denn als H. E. d’Albert18 vor paar Jahren Clavierstücke von mir hier spielte, zahlte H. Gutmann aus eigener Tasche sogar 15Fl Tantièmen (Novitätentantième), ohne nur ein Wort d’Albert oder mir zu sagen. Ich erfuhr davon nach 2 Jahren in Gegenwart [in left margin: Prf.] Beckers19 u. Dr. Rottenberg’s20 aus Frankfurt; Gutmann war aber nicht zu bewegen, sich das Geld von d’Albert oder mir retourniren zu lassen. Dies also nur eventuell.21

Nächstens kommt aber ganz grosses, vielleicht gelingt es mir dann damit, mich bekannter zu machen.

Tausend Grüsse
von Ihrem Sie verehrenden
[ sign’d: ] H Schenker

© In the public domain, reproduced with kind permission of the Nederlands Muziek Instituut, Den Haag.
© Transcription Kevin Karnes, 2006

Handwritten letter from Schenker to Julius Röntgen, dated April 13, 1901

Vienna, April 13, 1901

Honored and dear Professor,1

Many thanks for your acceptance [of my invitation] to contribute! I hope you have also reached an agreement with Weinberger & Co.2 I have not seen W. for some time and I know virtually nothing about how it turned out. If you assert that what you have to offer is your intellectual property (in a higher sense than the typical services of all too many editors),3 you may indeed insist on a higher honorarium than the usual. And Weinberger will approve it. At least that’s what I will do with regard to the edition of C. P. E. Bach that I’ve promised to undertake.4 In truth, I do not know if I should be more fearful of the colossal task ahead or overjoyed at so much beauty. Do you know the Sonata in F major, {2} the second in Br[eitkopf] & H[ärtel]’s Urtext volume? It is so endlessly fine and, in stark contrast to the modern first-and-second-subject merchants, presented so freely and lavishly, in such a multifarious manner! Who today writes with such genius as we see on the last eighth-note of m. 4 in the first movement? How exquisitely it moves back and forth, coming and going, like a slight muscular movement, like the merest twitch! Nothing is thick, nothing coarse, in no way dolled up. Will and execution, both working delicately, marvelously!

The fact that von Bülow5 could leave this sonata aside would be incomprehensible to me if I had not earlier been inclined to judge him somewhat more lowly than highly. And if I have understood your teasing lampoon of Bülow, you too feel that he is a figure less worthy of beatification, less worthy of being taken seriously, than the great star-struck masses believe. I might take this opportunity to say that even Brahms too did not overestimate him; it was indeed Br[ahms] who threw a wet towel on the furor teutonicus when the Germans {3} were clamoring for a national monument after Bülow’s death. I went to Brahms then, at the behest of Harden in Berlin,6 and he said, “Eh, what’s all this? I have pledged money and support, but only for a cemetery monument in Hamburg. B[ülow] deserves no more; he was only a Kapellmeister! Does Wagner have a monument? etc.” How lovely that Br[ahms], despite all his feelings of thankfulness, had the courage to say it. This is my view too regarding the question of a monument.

And now a few more words about what I’ve sent you as promised. I hope that Invention No. 2, of which I am very proud, may arouse your interest.7 It is indeed rather quick—passionate, I think, deliberate, very expressive! It is here, primarily, where I’ve breached modernism. It would make me very happy if this invention pleased you.

In contrast, I am absolutely certain that you must—that you simply must—find one of {4} the Lieder pleasing (so firmly am I convinced of this, and I say so nevertheless with all the modesty that you and I both deserve): “Der Ausklang.”8 There is, incidentally, a strange, uncanny reason for this. Consider this: Prof. Gärtner,9 who just this year hosted a Liederabend of the “young,” which included works by R. Strauss (around 14–16 Lieder by 8–10 composers were performed), wanted to sing two of my Lieder—“Wiegenliedchen,”10 of course, because he found the pp and so forth so agreeable (and moreover because it provided a pleasant counterbalance to the other novelties, which, as is common practice today, obliterate the Lied style completely, tear the vocal cords to shreds, and regard key and tonality as vanquished), and also the above-mentioned “Ausklang.” Now, it happened that he needed to sing more Lieder by his accompanist, Mr. von Zemlinsky,11 because the following week, in his capacity as music director of the Carltheater, the latter was to conduct Gärtner’s operetta (“one hand washes the other”). And so he could only sing “Wiegenliedchen,” {5} with which, by the way, he scored perhaps the greatest success of the evening . . .

But now consider this (and here comes the tragedy): On the same evening as the concert, almost the same hour, even the same minute in which Gärtner performed [my work], the uncommonly congenial author of the poem “Leuchtende Tage”—the author of “Ausklang”—died in Berlin, before the end of his thirty-second year!!12 If Gärtner had sung “Ausklang” at that moment, how strange the coincidence would have been!

Oh! Read Jakobowski’s book of poetry! — What a pure, loving man! A touching disposition.

From everything I’ve sent, it will be obvious to you that I take no pleasure in getting wrapped up in enharmonicism and chromaticism, as people are so fond of doing today in the most childish of ways. The reason for all the present carrying on is the following view of mine: {6} No one has such a brilliant sense of tonality that he is able to write with such brilliant, multifaceted inventiveness (and, in turn, in such multifaceted forms) as, e.g., Schumann, in the Intermezzo, Op. 4, No. 5, where the actual tonic, D minor, makes its first appearance in mm. 20-21, after a long, utterly beautiful tarrying in F majorand indeed undergirded by a different motive!

And at first, pp! Only in m. 29 is it ff, D minor, the eighth-note motive ff, and above it, however, a new ballad from out of this D minor. – – Or Brahms’s G-minor Rhapsody, which you play so well13: The tonic G (major) first appears in m. 9 (and how it is hidden!), and the actual tonic, G minor, finally in m. 11! How it all unfolds! How it moves toward the tonic! And then without much ado, the tonality makes its way toward D minor!

And a most brilliant example of enharmonicism in the E-minor Sonata of Beethoven,14 in the first movement around m. 37 and after. {7} This B flat, this B-flat major!!!

And so I say: Most people today, because their lack of talent in art cannot unfortunately transform itself into talent, and restlessly sensing that something must be changed in [their] art if dreaded boredom is to be avoided, feel that they must transform and alter—most rashly—even the tones themselves. The more monotonous they are themselves in terms of invention and talent, the more the notes must be altered, and ever more rashly, so that the monotony of the composer is not betrayed.

I firmly believe that one must not hand a child key, tonality, modulation, chromaticism, or enharmonicism any more readily than one hands a child fire. It is indeed no joke. And above all, synthesis!—which must have spirit in every nook and cranny, and the less conspicuous [it is], the more beautiful; if obtrusive, then all the more contrived.15

In conclusion, honored, dear Professor, one more thing: Should Prof. Messchaert,16 at some point, feel like singing “Ausklang” (only out of the most sincere {8} convictions, of course!), I hope that Mr. Gutmann17 will not make trouble. Because when Mr. Eugen d’Albert18 played some of my piano pieces here a couple years ago, Mr. Gutmann paid the 15-Florin royalty (novelty royalty) out of his own pocket, without saying a word to d’Albert or to me. I learned about it two years later in the presence of Prof. Becker19 and Dr. Rottenberg20 from Frankfurt; Gutmann, however, could not be persuaded to let the money be returned by d’Albert or myself. I hope this will be resolved.21

If this is getting overly long, then perhaps it has succeeded in making [you] more acquainted with me.

A thousand greetings,
Yours, in great admiration.
[ sign’d: ] H Schenker

© Translation Kevin Karnes, 2006.

COMMENTARY:
Format: 8p letter, oblong format
Sender address: Vienna
Recipient address: --

FOOTNOTES:

1 Federhofer quotes the entire letter in Heinrich Schenker nach Tagebüchern ... (Hildesheim: Olms, 1985), pp. 189–92. The differences between his text and this one are largely matters of house-style. This letter responds to OJ 13/27, [1], March 18, 1901.

2 Josef Weinberger (1855-1928), Viennese music publisher. Weinberger, who had run his own music publishing outfit since 1885, was principal shareholder in the cooperative publishing firm Universal Edition, established formally in June 1901. At the time of its founding, UE aimed—as expressed in an early catalogue—to publish “a comprehensive collection of model editions of all the works needed in schools and for private study covering all the various levels of piano, violin, and voice instruction; of classical compositions for piano, solo song, and chamber music; as well as four-hand transcriptions of all classical symphonies, quartets, overtures, etc.” Schenker sought to secure Röntgen’s collaboration in the latter endeavor in a letter of March 15, 1901 (NMI C 176-02); Röntgen accepted the invitation in a letter of March 18, 1901 (OJ 13/27, 1). Schenker’s contact with Weinberger and his firm extends back to 1899; the latter published Schenker’s Syrische Tänze für Pianoforte zu 4 Händen (Vienna: Josef Weinberger, n. d.). (Ian D. Bent, “‘That Bright, New Light’: Schenker, Universal Edition, and the Origins of the Erläuterung Series, 1901-1910,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 58/1 (2005), 71-75, cited at p. 72; Hellmut Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker nach Tagebüchern ..., 17, 189-92.)

3 Square bracket used in place of left-hand parenthesis in original.

4 Schenker’s edition of selected works by C. P. E. Bach would be published as Klavierwerke von Philipp Emanuel Bach: Neue kritische Ausgabe von Heinrich Schenker (Vienna: UE, [1903]). (On the history and dating of this publication, see Ian D. Bent, “‘That Bright, New Light’: Schenker, Universal Edition, and the Origins of the Erläuterung Series, 1901-1910,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 58/1 (2005), 74-75).

5 Hans von Bülow [create biogfile and link]. Von Bülow was one of the collaborating editors of Cotta’s Instruktive Ausgabe klassischer Klavierwerke; in particular, vols. 4 and 5 of Beethoven’s Sonaten und andere Werke in that series were edited by von Bülow. His editions were a frequent target of S's polemical attacks. S is referring here to von Bülow’s edition of C. P. E. Bach keyboard sonatas (Leipzig: Peters, 1862), a copy of which we know the Amsterdam Conservatory had: WSLB 20, September 28, 1908).

6 Maximilian Harden (1861-1927), German critic and publicist. Harden began his career in the 1880s writing theater criticism for numerous German papers, but turned his attention primarily to social and political issues by the end of the decade. Disillusioned by the critical culture of the late-century Germany (he considered critics beholden to their publishers, who in turn answered to the interests of industry and politicians), Harden founded the self-published Berlin weekly Die Zukunft in the autumn of 1892 as a forum for independently minded writers on cultural and political topics. He immediately recruited Schenker to write on music; Schenker’s first contribution to Die Zukunft, on the operas of Pietro Mascagni, appeared in the journal’s third issue, on October 15 (Schenker, “Mascagni in Wien,” repr. in Heinrich Schenker als Essayist und Kritiker ..., ed. Hellmut Federhofer (Hildesheim: Olms, 1990), 26-30). Over the course of 1892-97, Schenker would contribute eighteen essays to Die Zukunft. Among Schenker’s assignments for the paper was the one described in the present letter. In a letter dated May 11, 1894, Harden asked Schenker to query Brahms about his position regarding the erection of a Bülow monument. Apparently, Brahms declined to contribute anything publicly to the discussion, and on November 24 Harden asked Schenker “to put aside” (zurückzustellen) his efforts, adding, “Es wird so entsetzlich viel gebrahmst” (OJ 11/42). Schenker later reflected upon his visit to Brahms’s apartment at Harden’s behest in Schenker, “Erinnerungen an Brahms,” Deutsche Zeitschrift 46/8 (1933), 475-82. (Harry F. Young, Maximilian Harden: Censor Germaniae (Münster: Regensberg, 1971); Kevin C. Karnes, “Heinrich Schenker and Musical Thought in Late Nineteenth-Century Vienna” (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 2001), 51-57.)

7 Schenker, Zweistimmige Inventionen, Op. 5 (Leipzig: B&H, 1901). See brief discussion in Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker nach Tagebüchern ..., p.18.

8 Schenker, Sechs Lieder für eine Singstimme mit Begleitung des Pianoforte, Op. 3 (Leipzig: B&H, 1898, 1901), No. 4, “Ausklang” (text by Ludwig Jacobowski).

9 Click on Eduard Gärtner.

10 Schenker, Sechs Lieder, Op. 3, No. 2, “Wiegenlied” (text by Detlev von Liliencron).

11 Alexander von Zemlinsky (1871-1942), Austrian composer, pianist, and conductor. Zemlinsky received his training at the Vienna Conservatory in 1886-92, where he studied theory with Robert Fuchs and composition with Josef Nepomuk Fuchs. Early performances of his compositions, at the Wiener Tonkünstlerverein and other venues, earned the admiration and support of Brahms. A friend and collaborator of both Mahler and Schoenberg (Schoenberg studied with Zemlinsky in the early 1890s), Zemlinsky became a founding member of the Vereinigung Schaffender Tonkünstler in 1904. A conductor in high demand, Zemlinsky served as Kapellmeister at Vienna’s Carltheater from 1900 until 1903, when he moved to the same position at the Theater an der Wien. (Antony Beaumont, “Alexander Zemlinsky,” in NGDM2 (2001); Hans Jancik, “Alexander von Zemlinsky,” in MGG (1949-68).

12 The poetic text of Schenker’s “Ausklang” was written by Ludwig Jacobowski (1868-1900). After earning a doctorate in literature at the University of Berlin in 1891, Jacobowski dedicated himself to working as novelist, poet, and polemicist, and to work for the Berlin Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus. His works include the novel Werther, der Jude (1892), the polemical essay Der christliche Staat und seine Zukunft (1894), and several volumes of poetry. The poetic collection Leuchtende Tage, of which Schenker writes, appeared in 1899. Jacobowski died on December 2, 1900. (Angelika Müller, “Ludwig Jacobowski,” in Literatur Lexikon. Autoren und Werke deutscher Sprache, ed. Walther Killy (Gütersloh and Munich: Bertelsmann, 1988-93), vol. 6, 59-60; Penrith Goff, “Ludwig Jacobowski,” in Deutsches Literatur-Lexikon, 3d ed., ed. Heinz Rupp and Carl Ludwig Lang (Bern and Munich: Francke, 1968-99), vol. 8, cols. 432-33.)

13 Op. 79, No. 2.

14 Op. 90.

15 This sentence is syntactically complex and elliptical, so its rendering is tentative. Additionally, je stylvoller might be interpreted in a favorable light as “the greater the richness of style”; however, S had a low opinion of the notion of “style,” believing the repertory to be made up of single masterpieces created by individual masters, not styles created by schools of composers, hence the adverse reading adopted here.

16 Click on Johannes Messchaert.

17 Albert J. Gutmann, agent and concert promoter. As discussed in the letter below, Concertbureau Gutmann had a contract with the pianist Eugen d’Albert that extended back to the early 1890s. (Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker nach Tagebüchern ..., p. 56 n. 11.)

18 Click on Eugen d’Albert.

19 Hugo Becker (1864-1941), German cellist. A virtuoso of international repute, Becker made his solo debut with the Mannheim National Theater Orchestra at age sixteen. The dedicatee of solo works by Max Reger, Eugen d’Albert, and Ernst Dohnányi, Becker achieved renown for chamber work with Carl Flesch and Carl Friedberg. He taught at the Hochschen Conservatory and the Royal Swedish Academy before being appointed to the faculty of the Berlin Hochschule für Musik in 1909. (Kurt Stephenson, “Hugo Becker,” in MGG (1949-68).

20 Ludwig Rottenberg (1864-1932), Austrian conductor and composer. Born in Bukovina, Rottenberg studied theory and composition with Robert Fuchs and Eusebius Mandyczewski in Vienna. Upon the recommendation of Brahms and Bülow, Rottenberg was appointed Kapellmeister at the Frankfurt Opera in 1893, a position he held until 1926. (Hans Joachim Moser, Musik Lexikon: Ergänzungsband (Hamburg: Sikorski, 1963), 210; Riemann Musik Lexikon, 12th ed. (1961), Personenteil, vol. 2, 546. See also Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker nach Tagebüchern ..., p.153.)

21 The circumstances to which this discussion refers are not entirely clear, but it seems as though a concert by d’Albert, arranged by Gutmann and at which one of Schenker’s works was performed, was not financially successful. Rather than acknowledging this fact to either d’Albert or Schenker, Gutmann apparently absorbed the loss himself, and paid Schenker’s royalty “out of his own pocket.” Schenker’s concern regarding Messchaert’s possible interest in performing some of his Lieder might be explained by the fact that Messchaert, like d’Albert, was also represented by Gutmann (as we learn in Röntgen’s letter to Schenker, OJ 13/27, 4, October 14, 1901).

SUMMARY:
S acks OJ 13/27, [1], advises R to argue for a higher than normal honorarium from Weinberger, and comments on his own task of editing sonatas by C. P. E. Bach (referring disparagingly to von Bülow). — Commends to R one Invention from his Op.5 and one song from his Op.3 (relating story about Eduard Gärtner and Zemlinsky. — Discusses chromaticism and enharmonicism, instancing examples from Schumann, Brahms, and Beethoven. — Expresses hope that Johannes Messchaert may sing one of his songs, and warns of difficulty with agent/publisher Alfred Gutmann.

© Commentary, Footnotes, Summary Kevin Karnes, 2006

Karnes, Kevin
Schenker, Heinrich
DE
Cambridge University Faculty of Music–Ian Bent
Schenker, Heinrich; Weinberger, Josef; Bach, C. P. E.; Breitkopf & Härtel; Urtext; Bülow, Hans von; Harden, Maximilian; Berlin; Hamburg; Inventions; Lieder; Gärtner, Eduard; operetta; Strauss, Richard; Ausklang; Wiegenliedchen; Leuchtende Tage; Jakobowski, Ludwig; Zemlinsky; Carltheater; Wagner; Tonalität; tonality; Enharmonik; enharmonicism; Chromatik; chromaticism; Schumann; Intermezzo; Brahms; Rhapsody; Beethoven; sonata; Messchaert, Johannes; Becker, Hugo; Rottenberg, Ludwig; Frankfurt; Gutmann, Albert J.; Tantième; royalty; d'Albert, Eugen
Handwritten letter from Schenker to Röntgen, dated April 13, 1901
NMI C 176–02
1901-04-13
2006-11-19
Röntgen
In the public domain; reproduced with kind permission of the Nederlands Muziek Instituut, Den Haag.
Röntgen, Julius (1901-c1922)—Gemeentemuseum, Den Haag (on loan: c1933–1999)--Nederlands Muziek Instituut, Den Haag (on loan: 2000–2005)—Nedelands Muziek Instituut, Den Haag (2006–)
IPR: in the public domain; Image: Nederlands Muziek Instituut, Den Haag; Transcription, Translation, Commentary, Footnotes, and Summary: Kevin Karnes.
Vienna
1901

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 13, 1901 1:00 AM.

The previous post in this blog was OC 52/386 : 3-23-01.

The next post in this blog is OJ 13/27, [2] : 4-22-01.

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

Powered by
Movable Type 3.34