Der Tonwille
Pamphlets/Quarterly Publication
in Witness of the Immutable Laws of Music,
O
ffered to a New Generation of Youth by
H E I N R I C H S C H E N K E R
Semper idem sed non eodem modo
VO LU M E I I : Issues
– (–)
E d i t e d b y W i l l i a m D r a b k i n
t r a n s l at e d by
i a n b e n t
w i l l i a m d r a b k i n
j o s e p h d u b i e l
j o s e p h lu b b e n
w i l l i a m re nw i c k
r o b e rt s na r re n b e r g
1
1
Oxford New York
Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi São Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto
Copyright © by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. Madison Avenue, New York, New York, www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schenker, Heinrich,–.
[Tonwille. English]
Der Tonwille : pamphlets in witness of the immutable laws of music / Heinrich Schenker ; edited by William Drabkin ; translated by Ian Bent . . . [et al.].
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN---
. Schenkerian analysis. . Music—History and criticism. I. Drabkin, William. II. Tonwille. III. Title.
MT.S T –dc
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
History of the Tonwille Project (Continued)
T
he general preface to volume traced Schenker’s dealings with Universal Edi-tion from their beginnings in through to early , with particular attention to those from onward concerning Der Tonwille. As shown there, conflict be-tween Schenker and Emil Hertzka, the firm’s director, concerning this publica-tion had already arisen by May , and relations had come under severe strain in February , with Schenker’s allegations of “censorship” and “terrorizing.” In April , Schenker evidently questioned his royalty receipts; for Hertzka, drawing attention to the fluctuations in currency exchange rates of the time, and the imposition of numerous extra taxes and duties, suggested a meeting at which “a new financial arrangement” could be discussed (OC /).On October , , a meeting took place at which, although no minute seems to have been kept, the two men agreed to move from the loosely sched-uled publication of Tonwille “issues” (Hefte) to a regular quarterly schedule by “annual volume” (Jahrgang), each comprising four issues. A change of subtitle was approved on December (OC /), “Flugblätter” simply being replaced by “Vierteljahrschrift”:
Der Tonwille / Vierteljahrschrift / zum Zeugnis unwandelbarer Gesetze der Tonkunst / einer neuen Jugend dargebracht von / Heinrich Schenker
(Der Tonwille: quarterly publication in witness of the immutable laws of music, offered to a new generation of youth by Heinrich Schenker)
At that point, issues – had already been published, and and were in pro-duction; thus the “quarterly” (as Schenker now liked to abbreviate it) was to begin with what was, by the old numbering, issue and, by the new, issue of an-nual volume IV, on the basis that the first six issues were published during a three-year period,–. The old numbering was preserved alongside the new
on both the wrapper and the title page: for example, “annual volume IV, issue (seventh issue of the complete series).” We can reconstruct the overall pattern of publication as follows (the middle column shows, where known, the date on which Schenker was notified of publication by Universal Edition):
Numbering Publication Date Title-page Date
Tonwille went to press: May ,
(OC /) Tonwille June , (OC /) Tonwille January , (OC /) Tonwille June , (OC /)
Tonwille before February ,
(OC /)
Tonwille April ,
(OC /)
year IV, issue before August , January–March (Tonwille) (OC /)
year IV, issues – before November , April–September (Tonwille/) (OC /)
year IV, issue before January , October (Tonwille) (OC /)
A single exchange of letters in September helps gauge the temperature between the two parties. On September , Emil Hertzka wrote to Schenker (OC /):
Dear Professor,
I have just been informed that you maligned us in a wholly unjusti-fied manner to one of the employees of the Gutmann Music Store. May I ask you please to comment on this. I cannot credit this report, although it comes from someone accustomed to speaking the truth.
In awaiting your most immediate and detailed comments, I remain Yours respectfully Universal Edition Hertzka
This is Schenker’s response of September (OC /, WSLB ): I have today received your letter of the th; I freely admit that, in keep-ing with my character (with which you are familiar), a few days ago I gave vent—indeed full vent—to my justified displeasure concerning your ob-served actions against me.
Schenker’s spontaneously defiant reaction to Hertzka’s question betrays a suspicion that Universal Edition is working not on his behalf but against his in-terests. This feeling will grow over the coming year: for example, in a draft re-sponse of December , , Schenker speaks of the publisher’s “very desire to sabotage my work and the dissemination of the periodical” (/).1
Schenker’s discontents in the fall of can be subsumed under two broad headings: () contractual matters, including authorial autonomy, a publisher’s freedom to cut, edit, and impose limitations, what constitutes “the realm of music,” and the publisher’s imprint; () administrative matters, including publi-cation schedules, accounting, and marketing.
Contractual Matters
O
n contractual matters, the conflict between Schenker and Hertzka dates back to December , , when the latter first hinted at concerns over the opening essay of issue , “The Mission of German Genius,” then in galley proofs (OC /).Relations deteriorated sharply in Spring over Hertzka’s refusal to publish issue intact, his grounds being that (a) the issue far exceeded the two-gathering limit stipulated in the April/July , , contract; (b) much of the content of the Miscellanea was unacceptable to him because it did not concern music, therefore lay outside the terms of the contract; and (c) he found the “polemical” material offensive, as it included a sustained attack upon a personal friend of his.
After the meeting with Hertzka at which quarterly publication is agreed (Oct. , ), Schenker now believes that the old contract will be replaced by a new one. However, no new contract is forthcoming. He staunchly maintains that the provisions of the old contract, especially the limit of two gatherings (thirty-two pages), do not apply from year IV, issue onward, as he writes here, probably in October (OC / –):
The first year of the quarterly [no longer?] had any contract whatsoever as its basis. To make the first contract, designed for the irregular release [of issues], apply to the quarterly, as the publishing house has done, is a contradiction of the contract as well as of the very idea of a quarterly pub-lication, not to mention also a contradiction of the word of the publisher himself, but one which he later declared invalid with the excuse that his word, dropped in a meeting, was not included in the contract.
Authorial independence. An unsigned letter of September , , from Uni-versal Edition—a communication that marks a watershed in relations with Schenker—announces that issues , , and , which will appear by the end of the year, must be limited to two gatherings each. This means that Schenker’s study of Brahms’s Variations on a Theme of Handel, Op., must be split between issues and , and that both issues must be padded out with shorter, make-weight ar-ticles (OC /). Schenker is incensed:
. at the re-imposition of the two-gathering limitation, which he believes has been superseded by the change to quarterly publication;
. at the reediting that Universal has been doing to his material, including adap-tation of the Miscellanea—he remarks in an ill-tempered first-draft response that is subsequently softened: “U. E.’s role is merely that of the publishing house, and it is its damned duty to ask for my consent with all due courtesy. But without my consent the publishing house may not lay a finger on the content of the volume.”;
. at the very idea of make-weight articles, and the disruption of his workflow that having to break off and write such items would represent. He makes a
vi 1Suspicion of sabotage by Universal Edition goes back two years earlier. Schenker’s diary for
Sept, , reports: “[Wilhelm] Furtwängler . . . expresses the opinion that Hertzka is ‘sabotaging’ me, and says he is willing to make inquiries with Peters and Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig”; also Walter Dahms alludes to it in . See Hellmut Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, nach Tagebüchern und Briefen
forceful claim for integrity: “each issue, as a defined whole, conforms to a plan, and I cannot allow anyone in a spirit of mischief-making to compro-mise this plan,” and it is crucial to offer subscribers “well-rounded issues, each of which addresses a particular theme.” (OC /–, ca. Sept. , ). In the same letter, Schenker sounds an ominous note that issue is getting out of the publishing house’s control, just as issue had done in the spring of , and makes a fascinating allusion to the enforced rearrangement of para-graphs in the foreword to the second volume of Kontrapunkt (published by Cotta of Stuttgart2in, but under an arrangement with Universal). Universal’s
re-sponse (OC /, Sept. ) alleges the technical impossibility of producing more than a total of six gatherings in the coming three months, but then reluctantly offers Schenker a way out: he may publish issues and together as a double issue of four gatherings, which will thus accommodate the Brahms essay intact. Schenker’s response of September (OC /) is grudging, and is cast in the form of a countersuggestion that issues and be released simultaneously and compensate for one another in size:
I should like, however, to make clear right away that it has come only after much soul-searching, because my conscience as author and artist balks at striking bargains at the cost of my creativity. . . . This bargain constitutes the last sacrifice that I will make in order to facilitate the appearance within this year of the three outstanding volumes.
Universal, however, adheres to the double-issue plan, permitting up to sixty-four pages. The material on hand fills only fifty-five pages, and Universal stresses that it would prefer the volume to be visibly of double size (OC /). Schenker, however, remains adamant that he will not provide make-weight items, and issue / is released with fifty-five pages plus a final, blank page, with an understand-ing that issue may proportionally exceed the two-gathering limit and extend to between forty and forty-two pages (it ended up as forty-two pages exactly).
Publisher’s imprint. The choice of publisher’s imprint for Tonwille was long a bone of contention. We gave evidence in the general preface to volume that, as early as the fall of, the use of the fictitious Tonwille-Flugblätterverlag rather than “Universal Edition” aroused Schenker’s suspicions. The full imprint for is-sues– had been:
Tonwille Pamphlet Press Vienna, I., Opera House (Albert J. Gutmann & Co.) Leipzig, Karlstrasse (Friedrich Hofmeister & Co)
Schenker’s legal mind compels him to offer proof: the directors of Gutmann (a music retail and hire store located in the Opera House), Josef Simon and Emil Hertzka, are also president and chairman respectively of the board of Universal Edition, and because his own business has always been conducted with Univer-sal, therefore Gutmann must be merely a “front” for Universal Edition (OC / –, /–, / –).3
Schenker is convinced that, with the conversion of Tonwille to quarterly publication, Hertzka has given his word to changing the imprint to “Universal Edition.” Indeed, Schenker demonstrates, by textual analysis of his list of abbre-viations on the verso side of the title page, that the latter imprint had actually
ap-peared on the title page of issue (⫽ IV/) only to be expunged at the last
mo-ment and replaced by “Tonwille Press” (Tonwille-Verlag: the word Flugblätter had meanwhile disappeared from the title: OC /). Thus, the imprint “Tonwille Press” appears on the covers and title pages of issues , /, and (IV/– ).4
However, Universal has an answer to Schenker’s allegations (OC /, Sept. , ):
You have forgotten a conversation that we had before the [] summer vacation. When we insisted on tying the change-over of Tonwille to being the published work of U. E., along with full artistic freedom for you as ed-itor, to a certain right of censorship when it comes to personal and na-tional-political attacks, you made very clear that under these conditions you would prefer “Tonwille Press” to continue to appear as the publisher. And we took note of this at the time, and accordingly retained it as the publisher’s imprint.
vii 2On Schenker and Cotta, see Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, pp.–, .
3Universal Edition had bought up Gutmann in ; see Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, p. . 4Two proof copies of the cover and title page of Tonwille have been kept with the
correspon-dence from Universal Edition. On one, the journal is still described as a series of “Flugblätter,” pub-lished by “Tonwille-Flugblätterverlag” (OC /); on the other, it is indeed called a “Vierteljahr-schrift,” published by “Universal-Edition A.-G. Wien” (OC /). A reprint of issue carries the imprint “Universal Edition / Vienna.”
Administrative Matters
A
dministrative matters are closely interrelated with contractual ones. Schenker comes to believe that Universal is deliberately dragging its feet on publication schedules. As he later puts it: “Despite my having delivered manuscripts and re-turned corrected proofs punctually, the volumes have appeared after many months’ delay,” with the result that despite his “vigorous urgings” over five years “ten rather than around sixty envisioned issues—the maximum figure, admit-tedly—have been published” (OC /v, Nov./Dec. ; OC /v, Apr. [?], ). Thus, in Schenker’s eyes, minimizing the number of published issues formed just another part of the strategy that included hiding those that were published behind the “Tonwille Press” imprint so as to minimize damage to Uni-versal’s international reputation. To these can be added other concerns: his attor-ney points out (OC /–, Mar. , ; bullet points added for clarity):“that Tonwille has not appeared (more correctly: has not been allowed to ap-pear) openly under your masthead, but has been obliged by you to hide be-hind a publishing pseudonym. I should mention that it was not advertised in
Die Musik until after it had been in existence for 1/
2years—and then only
once, never again;
that the conversion from occasional to quarterly publication of its issues went completely unpublicized;
that not the slightest effort has been made to propagate the publication;
that the retail outlets are not supplied with copies;
that stocks are merely piled up in the distribution center and are conse-quently kept secret;
that not a single copy is to be seen in the display area of Gutmann (Opera House);
that issues already published are declared there to be not yet in print;
that the employees of that firm never know where on the premises to look for—let alone find—issues that have been asked for;
that again and again orders insistently requested from other countries are marked as having been fulfilled, so that repeated visits by the ordering cus-tomer to the relevant bookstore are inevitably fruitless;
that, while new releases by my client are admittedly occasionally advertised in U. E. (e.g. in the issue of Die Musik this March), the works published [i.e., analyzed] in Tonwille . . . are denied advertisement, despite their being attrib-utable in an ancillary sense to Beethoven (Fifth Symphony, Op.!).”
Accounts and subscriptions. As we have seen earlier, Schenker was already ques-tioning the accuracy or fairness of Universal’s accounting by April . Prophetic of the eventual outcome, he comments on March , : “I am ready to relin-quish to you all the books of mine that are covered by royalty agreements for a corresponding cash sum, just so as not always to have to be rapping the knuckles of those who falsify their accounts.”5Something infuriates Schenker in the first
half-year accounts for , for he speaks of an (unspecified) “utterly shameless attempt” in July, involving Universal’s “commercial sharp practices in fulfilling contracts or in accounting methods” (OC /, draft, ?Sept. ).6In a remark
primarily concerned with the integrity of Tonwille issues, he makes an aside that reveals a certain amount of envy (OC /, ca. Sept. , ):
If the publishing house, for example, is doing everything possible to in-crease the number of subscribers to Anbruch,7then it must surely
appre-ciate, aside from matters of planning and substance, how important it must be to me to offer the subscribers whom I myself am recruiting with-out the slightest cooperation from the publishing house, indeed in the face of its machinations, at least well-rounded issues.
However, once Schenker receives the accounts for the second half of on February , , he excoriates Universal’s bookkeepers (OC /–) and de-mands a thorough inquiry. At the same time, he writes to pupils and friends, so-liciting their experiences in subscribing to Tonwille. His findings are that as many as seventy subscriptions have been placed and paid for that do not appear in the twice-yearly statements. These subscriptions were taken out and paid for on be-half of the music departments of the universities of Berlin, Bonn, Breslau, Frank-furt, Freiburg, Göttingen, Halle, Königsberg, Leipzig, and Munich during or early. Many other would-be subscribers or purchasers, he reports, have ap-proached Gutmann or Universal, and have been ignored.
viii
5Draft letter to Universal Edition, quoted in Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, pp. –. 6Schenker was philosophically antagonistic to the outlook that motivated all trade and
com-merce; see Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, pp.–.
7Musikblätter des Anbruch was the house journal of Universal Edition from to , in which
had appeared offensive reviews of Schenker’s Erläuterungsausgaben and the Beethoven “Moonlight Sonata” facsimile by Paul Bekker (a personal friend of Emil Hertzka) in the February and April issues of, and a favorable two-part article about Schenker’s work by Otto Vrieslander in the February and March issues of. It was Hertzka’s attempts to excise two outspoken passages from the latter (one against Bekker, the other against Hermann Kretzschmar) (OC /: Jan. , ) that prompted Schenker to call Hertzka “unjust, partisan, and terrorizing” (OC /: Feb. , ).
Amid the furor of charges and countercharges, a meeting takes place (after much foot-dragging, says Schenker, and with the intermediacy of his brother Moritz8) on March , , between Schenker, his wife, Jeannette, his attorney, and
Hugo Winter, chief of bookkeeping at Universal Edition. The subscription book that Winter presents arouses immediate suspicion because many pages have been torn out; Schenker dubs it pejoratively “a Hilfsbuch [manual] and a Schmierbuch [scribbling-book]” and reports that “the vast majority of the subscriptions already paid in the year are absolutely nowhere recorded in the subscription book and—even more remarkably—cannot be particularized by U. E.!” (OC /, Apr.[?], ). Universal does eventually locate the seventy missing subscriptions, claiming “negligence on the part of an employee” (OC /, /, June , ).
Change of Publisher
I
t is hard to determine without a fuller survey of the publisher’s records whether Schenker’s rapidly proliferating complaints arise out of an accurate assessment of incompetence and subversive action on Gutmann’s or Universal’s part, or out of paranoia on his part at an honorable commercial enterprise that he finds antipa-thetic. The strength of Schenker’s feelings is unmistakable: “For over years, it has been like going through a hell [with Universal]” (OC /, draft, May , ). By historical circumstance, he had found himself working with a publisher that was the embodiment of all that he detested: a cosmopolitan Jewish company that promoted the work of French, Italian, Hungarian, and Czech composers alongside Austrians and Germans, and advocated progressive styles in preference to the Austro-German classical repertory that he so revered. The first deliberative intention to break with the publisher may come in a draft of a letter of circa Sep-tember , , to Universal (OC /):9I therefore have no alternative but to face the consequences and to pro-pose that we dissolve our contract by mutual agreement after publication
of issue (quarterly issue ). I have no further binding obligations to U. E., other than the Tonwille contract, and anyone who cares to go through the letters and events and see all that has happened will appreciate that I have no further desire to work for the publishing house.
Hertzka at first merely reserves his response (OC /, Sept. , ). Schenker declares, probably in the following month, “With the release of the next issue [i.e., IV/, Oct ], I shall sever all connection with U-E as collaborator” (OC /–). On November , , Hertzka makes a proposal whereby Schenker would continue to contribute issues of Tonwille for a new fixed pay-ment, and then goes on to apply pressure (OC /):
The continuation of the series (Sammlung) appears to us desirable in the interests of musical education. If the series were to be continued by another publisher, that could happen under the title “Tonwille” only if the publisher were to take over the publishing rights, stock, plates, etc. in their entirety. We doubt if a publisher could nowadays be found who would declare him-self ready to do that. . . . The discontinuance of “Tonwille” altogether would surely be of great disadvantage for the ten already existing volumes, of which large stocks are in hand. This discontinuance would, moreover, not make a favorable impression as regards you personally as an editor.
By this time, Schenker’s pupil Otto Vrieslander, who had contributed a lauda-tory two-part article on Schenker to Musikblätter des Anbruch of February and March , is acting as intermediary with the Munich publishing house Drei Masken Verlag,10for Schenker receives a letter dated November , , from
ix 8Moritz (or Maurice, or Moses) Schenker, Heinrich’s younger brother, born August , , who
became General Director of the Vienna branch of the Zentral-Europäische Länderbank, and who oversaw Heinrich’s financial affairs.
9However, in his diary for September , , Schenker, regretting the failure of recent contacts
with Peters Edition, wrote: “I shall extol the day on which I manage to do my last volume in Vienna and can let my connection with U. E. go” (Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, p.). Four years earlier still, he must have said something disparaging, causing Hertzka to write “When I get back, I will relieve you of your pessimism about U. E.” (OC /, Jan. , ).
10Drei Masken Verlag was established in exclusively to publish works related to the theater
(hence its name: “three masks”), especially that of Munich. It acquired an office in Berlin, and in the s expanded its program ambitiously to include politics, music literature, memoirs, and expres-sionist literature; by then it was among the top percent of the publishing houses in Munich, a significantly larger publishing center than Vienna.
Drei Masken Verlag produced high-quality autograph facsimiles, including two Beethoven piano sonatas and orchestral works by Schubert and Wagner. Among music books, it issued the second edi-tion of Guido Adler’s Richard Wagner: Vorlesungen (); but most particularly, it had already pub-lished two volumes of the Mozart-Jahrbuch (–) and four volumes of the Sammelbände für
ver-gleichende Musikwissenschaft (–). The latter, which involved complex setting and unusual
music examples in acoustics and ethnomusicological transcriptions, must have allowed the publisher to feel they could handle the intricacies of Schenker’s work. Indeed, there are similarities in the lay-out and formatting of Bartók’s Volksmusik der Rumänen von Maramures (vol. of the Sammelbände), and Das Meisterwerk in der Musik. With Schenker’s agreement, Drei Masken Verlag modeled
two representatives of that press, Alfred Einstein and a person who signed all cor-respondence “Demblin,”11 expressing cautious interest in working with him.
They ask Schenker to supply details of “production costs, print-run, and sales of the issues of ‘Tonwille’ that have appeared so far” and (so confirming Hertzka’s surmise) indicate that, if it proved impossible to acquire “the whole of ‘Tonwille,’” they could “contemplate only a new serial with a new title.” The authors make it abundantly plain that they want to have nothing to do with Hertzka and will leave all negotiations to Schenker (OC /).
Schenker transmits the request for information to Universal only in a draft dated December , in which he rebuffs Hertzka’s fixed-payment proposal and warnings of November , remarking: “I have several publishing houses in mind, and am confident that I shall succeed in finding a home for ‘Tonwille’” (OC /–). Applying his own pressure, he offers to forego a claim for “material and moral” damages against Universal if they will facilitate the release of all ten existing issues to the future publisher. Hertzka replies curtly that he has no in-tention of surrendering the ten issues, and refuses to supply the requested infor-mation (OC /, Dec. , ).
A second letter from Drei Masken Verlag, of January , , assesses
Ton-wille as not a truly commercial venture, saying:
“Tonwille” appears in an edition of only copies. Because of that, we have to concede to Director H. that with “Tonwille” he is making a sort of gesture of tribute [Ehrengeschenk] to you that only he as publisher of your great theoretical writings and your Bach and Beethoven editions can make. (OC /)
(If this is to be trusted, it tells us that the print run for Tonwille was reduced by Universal from two thousand copies, as specified in the contract for the first four issues, to eight hundred by the end.) Einstein’s and Demblin’s letter proposes, instead, a yearly publication, equivalent to Tonwille IV/– , that is, roughly fif-teen gatherings, with the title Das Meisterwerk in der Musik—ein Jahrbuch (“The
Masterwork in Music: A Yearbook”), all material to be submitted by the July of each year to allow publication by Christmas, Schenker to receive percent of the retail price.12By early June, Universal knows that Schenker has been successful in
procuring another publisher, and reacts accusatorily (OC /, June , ): Your client, Dr. Schenker, has informed us today that he intends to con-tinue the publication that began as Tonwille with another publisher under another title. I would point out that in clause of the contractual letter of April , [recte ] Dr. Schenker acknowledged his commitment not to transfer the publication within the terms of Tonwille to any other pub-lisher. If he did this, your client would be guilty of a breach of contract.
Legal Proceedings
B
ut this is mere lawyerly bluster, for legal proceedings have been in the air for some months. On September , , Universal suggests that Schenker nominate a representative to conduct future discussions (OC /). Within a few weeks he is communicating with an attorney, Dr. Theodor Baumgarten, who on Febru-ary , ,13prepares the first draft of a legal document (OC /–) headed:Dr. Heinrich Schenker, writer on music, in Vienna III. Keilgasse , via: Re: Universal Edition & Co in Vienna I. Karlsplatz –
Presentation of the facts in the case
To the police headquarters in Vienna (Police for Economic Affairs) This is an account of the pertinent events combined with allegations against Uni-versal, and is annotated in both Baumgarten’s and Schenker’s hands. On April , Schenker agitates that they have in the meanwhile “significantly lost ground” and made themselves look “weak, pliable, and vacillating,” and urges repeatedly that they now put their complaints before a judge (OC /–). Baumgarten dis-agrees, but produces a second version of his document on April (OC /–). By chance, Hertzka writes on the same day to Baumgarten, remarking that Universal “has never yet had to take legal proceedings” against any of the hun-dreds of its authors. He goes on, with a veiled threat (OC /–):
We utterly deplore the fact that your client has for several months now adopted an attitude that is totally incomprehensible to us and
diametri-x 11Alfred Einstein (–), distinguished German musicologist, editor of Riemann’s
Musik-lexikon (ninth to eleventh editions,–), of the Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft –, and of
Köchel’s catalogue of Mozart’s works (rd edition, ). He was the author of Geschichte der Musik (), Heinrich Schütz (), Gluck (), and articles on Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque music. Settled in the United States in , he went on to write a biography of Mozart (), and his two most celebrated studies, Music in the Romantic Era () and The Italian Madrigal ().
The other signatory may be that of August Demblin. A short book of his, Czernin und die
Sixtus-Affaire, is listed on p. of the catalogue of publications by Drei Masken Verlag (OC /).
12Reported in Schenker’s diary for January , : see Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, p. . 13For this date, see the two later drafts: OC /–, and OC / – (paragraph ).
cally opposite to normal conduct in the light of some years of dealings between your client and the publishing house. . . . Your client seems bent on being the first author with whom Universal Edition goes to court [on grounds of accounting]. . . .
We are in complete agreement that the affair be submitted to the ap-propriate forum on the issues and legal points involved, and so as to bring light to the darkness we will lay before this forum for purposes of char-acterization the interesting correspondence of your client.
But now Hertzka—magician that he is—pulls a deal out of the hat that changes the complexion of the whole affair: () a royalty of two thousand German marks on the seven thousand unsold issues of Tonwille–, to be paid to Schenker in annual installments of four hundred marks over five years; () a half royalty on any new printings; and () the deal being extensible to Schenker’s other works.
From this point on, Schenker and Baumgarten develop a two-pronged attack, arguing the settlement figure upward, while building the case for court proceed-ings. Thus Baumgarten broadens the royalty offer to cover Tonwille spinoffs— monographs, Erläuterungsausgaben resulting from the analyses, and the republi-cation of all ten issues as a single volume;14he throws in an element of damages
from previous breaches of contract and mismanagement, and asks that the col-lected edition of the Beethoven piano sonatas and the Neue musikalische Theorien
und Phantasien be included (OC /–). A month later, he proposes a one-off
payment of twenty thousand Austrian shillings15for Tonwille, or alternatively a
severance (Ablöse) payment of fifty thousand shillings allowing Universal to con-tinue to market the existing issues of Tonwille, with full rights for translations, new editions, spinoffs, or collective publication, which Universal dismisses out of hand (OC /, May , ).
After two months of foot-dragging by Universal Edition, Baumgarten reverts to the legal route, writing to Schenker (OC /, July , ):
If, despite our already overly drawn-out correspondence with Universal we arrive at no acceptable outcome, should we not go to an arbitration court? It works faster than the state court [staatliche Gericht], and leads, if intelligent and competent judges are chosen on both sides, to a satis-factory arrangement.
Summer and early fall go by; then on October , with no response still from Universal, Baumgarten begins work again on the legal document and warns Uni-versal that his client is not afraid to go to court (OC /; OC /, Nov. , ). It is evident, however, that he has set his sights on a face-to-face meeting between Schenker and Hertzka, with the two attorneys in attendance, so as to en-gineer a financial settlement; thus he applies pressure by issuing on November a further warning of legal proceedings (OC /). Nine days later, Baumgarten invites Schenker to his office, bringing all the relevant documents so that he can draft the formal complaint that is to go to court (OC /). Such a draft exists: it uses much of the wording of the previous two drafts, updated, and more tightly drafted in fifteen clauses. It covers the publisher’s imprint, neglect of contractual obligations, accounting errors, and mishandling of subscriptions. Two passing remarks seem to imply still that nothing has so far been submitted to the police (OC / –, Nov.–Dec. , clauses and ):
However much I [i.e., Schenker] now regret it—though, given my hard-working and peaceable nature, it is admittedly really not surprising— I have been persuaded by my attorney . . . to persevere with seeking an amicable settlement.
My attorney, who is conciliatory to a fault, and who believed that by this means all shifting differences can be reconciled, became convinced by [a meeting on June , , with Universal Edition’s attorney, Gustav Scheu] that he should abandon the position he has adopted persistently up to now. In parallel, Baumgarten continues to urge a meeting: Hertzka is apprehensive at the presence of the attorneys, but Baumgarten pleads with Scheu (OC /). Finally, the meeting takes place on December with Schenker, Hertzka, and Win-ter (no mention of the attorneys), and a transcript survives in Jeannette’s hand (OC /), and “agreements” (Abmachungen) are discussed. Schenker com-ments that he will receive “even less than was envisioned in the original contract.” The agreement, which seems not to survive, is finalized on December , and pro-vides for four annual installments of, shillings for Tonwille (i.e., , shill-ings in total), plus ongoing annual installments of, shillings for the collected edition of the Beethoven piano sonatas.
Payments are to be made to the Vienna branch of the Central European Regional Bank, credited to the account of Moritz Schenker, the general director of the bank. The first payment is made on December , (OC /–), and payments continue in the last few days of each year following that (OC /, /, / xi
14Universal never reprinted Der Tonwille as a single volume, but did reprint issues –, –, and
– collectively as “Jahrgang ,” “Jahrgang ,” and “Jahrgang ”
). After , the Tonwille payments stop, while those for the Beethoven So-natas continue (OC /, /). Significantly, a week after the agreement is reached, Universal mails a packet to Baumgarten enclosing all the physical assets of Tonwille—plates and matrices (OC/, Dec , ).
Whether or not legal proceedings were ever initiated we cannot be sure; all that survives is a postal receipt (OC /) for the dispatch of a letter on December , , to the police administration (marked “Polizei D[irekt]ion”), to be forwarded to the “Pressepol[izei],” that is, the department concerned with newspaper and magazine libel actions, and to anything else related to published material. There seems not to have been a response from the authorities. It may be that a legal com-plaint had previously been submitted, and that the letter in question withdrew it.
Thereafter, correspondence between Schenker and Universal continues without break. Schenker regularly receives accounts and notifications as well as royalties, and in time Hertzka resumes normal civilities. In Das Meisterwerk in der Musik ceases with the third volume, and Universal once again becomes Schenker’s pub-lisher, producing his commentary on the Brahms manuscript concerning consecu-tive octaves and fifths (Johannes Brahms, Oktaven u. Quinten u.a.,) and the final volume of the Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien, i.e. Der freie Satz ().
T
here remain two curious postscripts to this account of the relations between Schenker and Universal Edition. The first must have struck Alfred Kalmus as ironic. In November , the Free Student Brotherhood of Kiel requests from Universal permission to reprint the opening essay of Tonwille, “The Mission of German Genius,” indicating that Schenker had already given his consent. This is, of course, the essay that had caused Hertzka so much offense, triggering the dete-riorating relations between author and publisher. The statement of account notes “ ‘Mission’ to the “Schleswig-Holstein Hochschulblätter,” that is, the newspaper of the conservatory in Kiel (OC /, /, /). Perhaps Schenker thought his dream of educating a new generation of German youth had begun to be realized!16The second postscript is intriguing. In April , Schenker proposes to Uni-versal that the Urlinie-Tafeln in Der Tonwille, that is, the large sheets of graphs at the back of each issue, be published together as a single small volume, and mar-keted in that form. (Kalmus expresses some concern as to how the graphs, being of different sizes, could be combined; and Hertzka is puzzled as to how they could stand on their own, shorn of their accompanying text, and asks for further guidance; see OC /–, WSLB –.) This proposed venture is consistent with the concept of the stand-alone graphic analysis, first realized in published form in the Fünf Urlinie-Tafeln of but already familiar to Schenker’s circle of students by early .17
Survey of Issues –
I
n general, the sort of material that went into Der Tonwille did not change much during its four-year history. Schenker was consistent in mixing analyses of canonic works of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with a small number of short essays on general themes; the “Miscellanea” (Vermischtes) at the end of most issues comprises an assortment of political, cultural and musical polemics. The principal achievements in issues – are the completion of the long study of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, and essays on two of Schenker’s favorite teaching pieces, Beethoven’s “Appassionata” Sonata and Brahms’s “Handel” Vari-ations, Op..18The analysis of the symphony is wide-ranging, and goesconsid-erably beyond the explication of the graphs of the Urlinie, which give an outline of the basic counterpoint and harmony; several features of Schenker’s analysis of the form are particularly noteworthy. The first is the indivisibility of the third movement (the main scherzo section), alluded to by the Goethe epigraph “It is as if all the things were wedged into one another.” By this, Schenker means that there is no contrasting middle section, or contrasting key, and the B chords in bars – must be understood as a transitional harmony, part of the descending fourth in the bass, C–B –A –G. (This is clarified at the start of the essay, with the aid of more detailed, multi-layered graphic illustration.)
xii 16The request was probably made at the suggestion of Reinhard Oppel, who was then a professor
of music theory at the conservatory.
Schenker’s diary for January , , reports Hertzka’s remarks about “Mission”: “it is ‘sacred,’ ‘magnificent,’ but protokolliert in New York: he would not dare to present it to foreign readers until it had first been discussed at a meeting of the board of Universal Edition in New York. [Hertzka] sug-gests that the article be published separately, . . . then hits upon the idea of bringing a fictitious pub-lishing house into existence . . . ‘now you can write whatever you want.’” See Federhofer, Heinrich
Schenker, p..
17In a letter written in January to a former pupil, Felix-Eberhard von Cube, Schenker writes
of a “Bild,” that is, an analytical graph, of a Bach prelude that “can ‘speak’ even without an accompa-nying text.” See William Drabkin, “A Lesson in Analysis from Heinrich Schenker: The C Major Pre-lude from Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I,” Music Analysis (), pp. –.
18The lesson books for the years and following, preserved in the Oster Collection (OC ),
show that many of Schenker’s pupils studied one or the other of these works, or both, and that Brahms’s Op. also was used as a model for the composition of variations.
A second striking feature of the study of Beethoven’s Fifth is the merging of the graphs of the Urlinie for the third and fourth movements into a single graph, with a broad linear ascent (Anstieg) in the last fifty bars of the scherzo (promi-nently bracketed in the graph) leading directly to the start of the finale; the prin-cipal theme of this movement, too, is based on the same ascent. Characteristically, he does not call the end of the scherzo a coda but a “transition to the last move-ment,” and again he provides a more detailed graph for clarification.
In the analysis of the finale, Schenker shows how the development is insepa-rable from the closing subject of the exposition and, especially, how purposefully the motivic development clarifies the design of the coda and how this section amounts to far more than “a mere bombardment of V–I cadences.” Again, each of these points is clarified by a multilayered graph.
Despite deteriorating relationships between publishing house and author, the three installments of “Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony” were published in book form in September . From the correspondence with Universal Edition we can see that Schenker had seen the proofs of this reissue (WSLB –; OC /, ). But, whereas the pagination is new, and the list of abbreviations at the beginning of the volume has been changed to reflect the latest version of Schenker’s bibli-ography, the text and music examples have been left untouched, so that number-ing of the music examples begins from a “Fig.” no fewer than five times: in the commentary on the first movement (analysis, remarks on the autograph, per-formance issues), in the discussion of the literature on the movement, and in the commentary on each of the second, third, and fourth movements. The book for-mat also shows plainly that the study of the symphony divides broadly into two parts, one on the first movement, and one on the remaining three.
The Brahms essay in Tonwille/, Schenker’s only published study of a work by the composer he had earlier eulogized as “the last master of the German music,” is likewise marked by a concern for showing how a long series of variations is much more than a set of quasi-independent statements, like “scenes in a pano-rama,” but rather that each grows from the previous one. In summing up his analy-sis of the variations, Schenker invokes the genealogical successions recounted in the early books of the Old Testament to argue that, in Brahms’s variation tech-nique, “nothing . . . is too small, too insignificant, that it might not be called upon for a new act of procreation.” The essay on Beethoven’s “Appassionata” is unusual in that motivic and voice-leading analysis are closely brought together: Schenker identifies a neighbor-note figure as the “Urlinie motive,” then proceeds to parse the first movement as a series of variations on this figure, as shown in a special
voice-leading graph that appears early in the essay (called Urlinie-Satz, and dis-tinct from the Urlinie-Tafel at the back of the issue). These two essays on large-scale piano pieces include as much detailed commentary on performance as we find anywhere in Schenker’s writing: the remarks, which are designed to show how difficult works may become more accessible to the performer once their content is understood—indeed, an important role of analysis is to provide in-sight into how to perform a work—usefully complement the more theoretical approach taken in Schenker’s fragmentary treatise on performance.19
The final issue of the series, like Tonwille, is made up entirely of short analy-ses; most of these are of popular piano pieces of moderate difficulty by com-posers whose keyboard music had not been discussed in earlier issues: two Men-delssohn songs without words, two pieces from Schumann’s Scenes of Childhood, and an impromptu and a moment musical by Schubert. The inclusion of Haydn’s “Emperor Hymn” gives Schenker an opportunity to combine analysis with poli-tics without having to invoke extramusical factors: he appeals to the Austrian na-tion that they “should at least know what a treasure they possessed in their proud past, so that they may forever be edified by it in a more troubled future.” The lead essay, on the opening chorus from St. Matthew Passion, is the second of a pair of
Tonwille analyses of excerpts from this work. Schenker knew the St. Matthew Pas-sion intimately, and it remained close to his heart to the end of his life; it was,
ac-cording to Jeanette Schenker, the subject of his dying words.20
Schenker’s interest in the accuracy of transmitted musical texts continues to play a prominent role in the later issues of Tonwille. In the lead essay in Tonwille, on Gretchen am Spinnrade, Op., he undertakes a thorough comparison of the text of Schubert’s autograph score with that of the first edition. In the next issue, he follows through the implications of a dispute over a single note in Beethoven’s String Quartet Op., which has taken place among musicians in the service of the work’s dedicatee, Prince Nikolai Galitzin, at St. Petersburg in summer . Especially here, but also in other discussions of textual problems, it is music analysis, rather than philological study of the sources, that guides Schenker to what he perceives as the correct reading of a passage; this is entirely consistent with the stand he took in earlier essays, notably on Beethoven’s Sonata Op., No. (see Tonwille , pp. –/I, p., and the general preface to the first volume
xiii
19Schenker’s notes for this treatise were published as The Art of Performance, ed. Heribert Esser,
trans. Irene Schreier Scott (Oxford: Oxford University Press,).
of this translation). The short essay on Op. also enables Schenker to identify with Beethoven, by showing how the composer’s reasoning is entirely consistent with the principles of voice-leading he has developed. In the Beethoven letters that are quoted in the Miscellanea immediately following, he takes this identifi-cation further, highlighting the theme of composer/theorist as misunderstood genius.
The general idea that what is closer to a composer—for example, an auto-graph manuscript, or letter—is more authentic also resonates in the second of two Miscellanea entries on Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, whose centenary was celebrated in , the year in which the last issues of Der Tonwille appeared. The apparent success of a tribute performance of the symphony by the Vienna Phil-harmonic conducted by Paul von Klenau—a hundred years to the day after its premiere, in the same theater and with the original scoring, and attempting to replicate all the composer’s performance indications—led Schenker to suggest that his home town establish a festival of “Viennese Classicism,” along the lines of Wagner at Bayreuth, as a way of preserving tradition. These ideas echo a senti-ment expressed in a polemical text, written a few years before but suppressed from an early issue of Der Tonwille, to the effect that rather little was being done to celebrate the work of Beethoven, compared to the attention lavished upon Wagner and Richard Strauss. (This text is published for the first time, in English translation, in the Appendix to this volume.)
There is in general, however, a marked reduction in the polemic content of each issue. Three sections of Miscellanea in Tonwille– together take up a mere nine pages, that is, less space than any of the Miscellanea in issues , , and , and less than half the space occupied by the lead article of the series, “The Mission of German Genius.” Moreover, the emphasis of the polemic is more cultural than political, and is often related to the composers whose works are discussed in the essays in the volume in which they appear: thus, for instance, a “Schubert” theme dominates the Miscellanea of issue , which was headed by the Gretchen essay; and the gloss on Beethoven’s letter on Op. is followed by further extracts of Beethoven letters in issue . The Miscellanea of Tonwille / is largely devoted to the theme of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony in the work’s centencry year. For the last issue of Tonwille, Schenker suppressed the Miscellanea column altogether, perhaps intending to make good an earlier intention to keep an issue devoted mainly to short didactic pieces free of polemic (see the general preface to the first volume, p. and p. , note ).
A similar trend toward concision or suppression also may be discerned in the
surveys of the literature on the pieces Schenker analyzed in the later volumes of
Tonwille. Thus, for example, Tonwille had included about seventeen pages of
critique, in fine print, of the literature on the first movement of the Fifth Sym-phony from E. T. A. Hoffmann () to Paul Bekker (), which was as much space as he had allotted to the entire musical commentary; but the literature on the remaining three movements is dispatched in just four pages, compared to forty-five of musical commentary spread across issues –. And while each of the major essays on Classical piano sonatas in issues – had included substantial discussions of the secondary literature, amounting in total to about one quarter of the text, the literature on the large-scale piano works discussed in issues and / is summarily dispatched: on Beethoven’s “Appassionata” Sonata, “pens wrote, not ears,” while critiques of Brahms’s “Handel” Variations are “scanty and in-significant.”
Tonwille/ marks the entry into Schenker’s writings of the “Elucidations”
(Erläuterungen), a three-page précis of his theory as it had developed during the earlys, in which many of the terms we associate with his theories are con-cisely explained and illustrated: Urlinie, degree (Stufe), prolongation, the transfor-mation of dissonant tones into consonances, unfolding, ascending and descend-ing register transfer, background and foreground. It was reprinted in Tonwille and, with minor changes, in the first two volumes of Das Meisterwerk in der
Musik. The title refers back to the earlier Erläuterungsausgabe project, while the
accompanying note (“from ‘Freier Satz’”) points toward the formulation of the theories in the final part of the Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien, al-though this was not to be published for another ten years.
The Early Reception of Tonwille
F
ive reviews of Der Tonwille, including short notices, are preserved in the Schenker scrapbook catalogued as File of the Oster Collection. The first is by Wilhelm Altmann, director of the music division of the Prussian State Library; it describes Schenker as a “profound and extremely knowledgeable Viennese music researcher” and underscores the importance of the Erläuterungsausgaben (for which Altmann had supplied Schenker with reproductions of original manu-scripts). But although he mentions the Urlinie and the works to which this con-cept is applied in the first issue of the new journal, the review is dominated by quotations from the lead article, an essay that he believes is likely to attract inter-est not only in Germany but also far beyond its borders (OC /).Bernhard Paumgartner, like Schenker, studied law at the University of Vienna (he received a doctorate in ), but made a career in music: initially as a con-ductor and, in – and –, as director of the Mozarteum in Salzburg. His review of Tonwille for the monthly magazine Der Heimgarten () was one of a series of enthusiastic notices he wrote about Schenker, with whose work he came into contact. He had issue to hand when he wrote his review, and describes how a “more literary section . . . leads from the purely musical into matters of more general concern to humanity, in which the profoundness of German music finds words as they have seldom been written.” Paumgartner acknowledges the polemical tone of Schenker’s essays and is aware that his tactlessness has made him many enemies, but he acknowledges his absolute sincerity and praises him as “a musician of great and pure heart” with an extraordinary critical faculty (OC /). A brief, descriptive notice of Tonwille , unsigned, appeared in the
Halb-monatsschrift für Schulmusikpflege [Bimonthly Journal for School Music Practice]
for December , (OC /); the other reviews were published in in Die
Musik, a journal to which Schenker had himself contributed an article two years
earlier.21The first and longer of the two reviews, by Max Broesike-Schoen,
ap-peared in January and is concerned entirely with the ideological proposi-tions set forth by Schenker, that is, that there are “immutable laws of music” that are to be found in the works of the classics (of whom Bach, Mozart, and Beetho-ven are representatives), invalidating all efforts that do not conform to these laws: Broesike-Schoen mentions two repertories, Netherlands polyphony and Wagner-ian music-drama, that can be invoked as counterexamples to Schenker’s “meta-physics and dogma formation”; and although he concedes that thorough and penetrating analyses show that there is a positive side to Schenker’s work, he re-gards the theorist “less as a prophet and canonic figure than as a cranky pedant” who will be remembered as one of the curiosities of music history. Broesicke-Schoen’s review was followed six months later by a shorter notice of Tonwille and by the Cologne-based critic Willi Kahl, who is quick to applaud the ex-tremely conscientious analyses of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, the Bach prel-udes, and other works, and to single out for special praise “a valuable text-critical investigation of Gretchen am Spinnrade,” but laments the fact that not only does Schenker’s temper continue to flare up in the Miscellanea but that he has
initi-ated “a trend for this kind of writing, as can be seen from Otto Vrieslander’s re-cent book on C. P. E. Bach.”22Kahl quotes a passage from “A Bach Prelude” from
the Miscellanea from Tonwille as a particularly “grotesque” example of Schenk-er’s furor teutonicus.
Although the number of actual reviews of Der Tonwille is small, the early s saw the appearance of several newspaper and journal articles mentioning the achievements in Tonwille in the context of Schenker’s overall achievements as a scholar and theorist. A few of these are highly partisan pieces by Vrieslander, and several more are by the writer and critic Walter Dahms, who studied for a time with Vrieslander and in whom Schenker’s stand against contemporary music and music journalism struck a sympathetic chord. (Some of Dahms’s ex-pressions, such as “the general decline of musical production since Brahms” and “the cries, falsifications and slander of journalists who try to drown out the voice of truth,” might easily be mistaken for Schenker’s own; see OC /.) Ludwig Moorman’s brief survey of Schenker’s work as editor and theorist, written for Die
Musikantengilde in, is the only writing preserved in the scrapbook that
high-lights a specific analytical idea in Der Tonwille—the growth of the entire first movement of Mozart’s Sonata in A minor, K., from its opening grace-note— to illustrate the theorist’s insight into music (OC /).
A Note on the Translation
A
n account of our editorial procedures is given in the general preface to the first volume of this translation. As before, we have consulted materials in the Oster Collection of the New York Public Library; we have indicated changes made by Schenker in his personal copies of Tonwille, for instance, to reflect the develop-ments in his notation of musical structure, or to add a further thought about the composer or work under discussion, although none of these changes was adopted in the reissue of Tonwille in three annual volumes, or when the three installments of “Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony” were reprinted as a separate monograph.The Miscellanea in the later issues of Der Tonwille seem not to have been sub-jected to Universal Edition’s censorship at proof stage, as had been the case with that published in issue ; their relative brevity and less caustic tone must have
xv 21This is the analysis of the Prelude in C minor from Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier, book, which
was reprinted at the end of “Das Organische der Fuge,” the essay on its companion fugue, in
Meister-werk.
22This monograph had been published in and would have been well known to Kahl, who
completed his Habilitationschrift, a history of eighteenth-century keyboard music, for the University of Cologne that year.
been cause for relief, if not celebration, on Hertzka’s part. There remained, how-ever, the essay on music criticism attacking Paul Bekker, which Hertzka had re-jected before Tonwille went to press and which was not published in any of the subsequent issues. This polemic, together with the canceled page proofs from the
Erläuterungsausgabe of Op. on which it is partly based, survives in Schenker’s
folder of “censored” material, which Schenker agreed to cut only under pressure, and is reproduced as the appendix to this volume. For this essay, the numbers in enclosed in curly brackets, from {} to {}, refer to the sheets of paper in the Oster Collection, file , on which the full text is preserved.
The text of the Beethoven letters quoted in Tonwille and has been checked against the new collected edition of Beethoven’s correspondence, Beethoven:
Briefwechsel: Gesamtausgabe, edited by Sieghard Brandenburg and published in
the late s. The new edition is in all respects vastly superior to Alfred Kalischer’s five-volume edition of the letters, which was Schenker’s source, and to all other editions that were current at the time. It is of special importance for the essay on the Quartet Op., not only because it corrects the poor reading offered by Kalischer (who was not even able to give the correct identification of the piece under discussion) but also because it provides additional background informa-tion about Beethoven’s letter and some of its earlier drafts.
T
his volume marks the completion, in English translation, not only of DerTon-wille but of all of Schenker’s major writings of the s, a project that has
oc-cupied us for a number of years; we are grateful for the help and encouragement of scholars, editors, and production teams throughout this period, and also for the imagination and the efforts of several teams of theorists and analysts who are gifted in the art of translation. We wish to record our special thanks here to Kimberly Robinson and Robert Milks of Oxford University Press for the care they have exercised in editing and producing this book, and to Barry Cooper (Univer-sity of Manchester), K. M. Knittel (Univer(Univer-sity of Texas at Austin), Michael Mus-grave (Goldsmiths College, University of London), and Robert Pascall (Univer-sity of Bangor) for their help in resolving specific questions.
As ever, the translators and editors are indebted to Andrea Reiter of the Uni-versity of Southampton, not only for help in clarifying several passages in the text, but more particularly for her exceptional insight into Schenker’s use of language.
Ian Bent, Columbia University William Drabkin, University of Southampton
German Words, Phrases, Technical Terms, and Abbreviations Used in the Music Examples xix
Bibliographical Abbreviations xxi
Tonwille 6
Schubert’s Gretchen am Spinnrade: Latest Results of a Manuscript Study
Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony (conclusion) True Performance
Miscellanea
Tonwille 7
Beethoven’s Sonata in F Minor, Op.
The Recitative “Erbarm es Gott” from Bach’s St. Matthew Passion Beethoven on His Quartet Op.
Miscellanea
Tonwille 8 – 9
Brahms’s Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel, Op. Genuine and Sham Effects
Elucidations Miscellanea
Tonwille 10
The Opening Chorus (First Chorale Fantasy) from Bach’s
St. Matthew Passion
Haydn: Austrian National Anthem
Schubert’s Impromptu, D. (Op. ), No.
Schubert’s Moment musical in F Minor, D. (Op. ), No. Mendelssohn’s Venetian Gondola Song, Op., No.
Mendelssohn’s Song without Words, Op., No.
Schumann’s Scenes of Childhood, Op., No. “Of Foreign Lands and Peoples”
Schumann’s Scenes of Childhood, Op., No. “Träumerei”
Appendix
Music Criticism Index
T
his is an alphabetized list of all the analytical labels and explanatory text found in the music examples and Urlinie graphs of Tonwille–. In general, an abbreviation is followed by the full form of the word in question, either after a comma (if that word also appears somewhere in the examples), or in brackets (if it does not). To obtain a translation of a short phrase, it is sometimes necessary to look up the component words or abbreviations: thus “Des dur”⫽ D major.As A (note)
B, b B (note)
Br. [Bratsche(n)] viola(s)
Brechung des G-Klanges arpeggiation of the G (major) chord
C.B. contrabass(es)
Ch.[Chor] choir
Des D (note)
Df. [Durchführung] development section (in sonata form) Dg. [Durchgang] passing note, transitional harmony Dg. mit –-Auswechslung passing tone [progression] with
alternating fifths and sixths
dur major
durch Übergreifen von Stimmen by the reaching-over of voices eine Oktave tiefer one octave lower
eine Stimme one voice
Fag. [Fagott(e)] bassoon(s)
Fallen durch Höherlegung und descent by means of ascending register
Übergreifen transfer and reaching-over
Fis F (note)
Fl. [Flöte(n)] flute(s)
für for
Ged [Gedanke] subject, group (in sonata form)
Ges G (note)
Grundton root
H B (note)
I, II first, second
Höherlegung ascending register transfer
Hrn [Horn, Hörner] horn(s)
linke Hand wie bei a) left hand as in [Fig.] a)
moll minor
Md. [Modulation] modulation (in sonata-form exposition)
N. S. [Nachsatz] consequent phrase
Nbn. [Nebennote] neighbor note
Nbn.-Hm. [Nebennotenharmonie] neighbor-note harmony
nicht not
Ob. oboe
Oberquintteiler divider at the upper fifth Oberquint als Teiler upper fifth as divider
oder or
Orch. orchestra
Pos. [Posaune(n)] trombone(s)
Quart fourth
Quartzug fourth-progression
Quint fifth
Quintzug fifth-progression
Quintzüge als springende fifth-progressions as leaping
Durchgänge passing tones
Rp [Reprise] reprise, recapitulation (in sonata form)
Rückung rhythmic shift
xix
Sept seventh
so thus
T. [Takt] bar, bar number
Teiler der Oberquint divider at the upper fifth
Terz third
Terzsatz counterpoint in (parallel) thirds
transponiert transposed
u.s.w. [und so weiter] and so forth
und and
Unterquintteiler divider at the lower fifth Unterquint als Teiler lower fifth as divider
Urlinie-Motiv motive of the Urlinie
Urlinie-Satz contrapuntal setting of the Urlinie V. S. [Vordersatz] antecedent phrase
Vcl. violoncello(s)
Verwandlung von dissonanten transformation of dissonant passing Durchgängen in konsonante tones into consonant ones
Vl. [Violine(n)] violin(s)
Wdhg. [Wiederholung] repetition
wie as, the same as
wirkliche Lage der Oberstimme actual register of the upper voice wirkliche Lage der Unterstimme actual register of the lower voice
zwei St[immen] two voices
Unpublished Materials
OC The Oster Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker, New York Public Library (New York)
A “Finding List” of this collection, compiled by Robert Kosovsky, is dated May , , and issued by the New York Public Library
WSLB Wiener Stadt- und Landesbibliothek [Municipal and Provincial Library of Vienna]: collection of letters from Schenker to Universal Edition, Vienna (on loan from Universal Edition)
Schenker’s Published Writings
Harmonielehre Harmonielehre⫽ Neue musikalische Theorien und
Phantasien, part (Stuttgart: Cotta, ) Abbreviated English translation: Harmony, ed. Oswald Jonas and trans. Elizabeth Mann Borgese (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,)
Ornamentik Ein Beitrag zur Ornamentik, rev.nd ed. (Vienna:
Universal Edition,)
English translation: “A Contribution to the Study of Ornamentation,” trans. Hedi Siegel, Music
Forum (), pp. –.
Kontrapunkt i, ii Kontrapunkt⫽ Neue musikalische Theorien und
Phantasien, part ; vol. i (Stuttgart: Cotta, ), vol. ii (Vienna: Universal Edition,)
English translation: Counterpoint, trans. John Rothgeb and Jürgen Thym, ed. John Rothgeb, vols. (New York: Schirmer, )
Beethovens neunte Sinfonie Beethovens neunte Sinfonie (Vienna: Universal
Edition,)
English translation: Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, trans. John Rothgeb (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press,)
Erläuterungsausgabe Beethoven, Die letzten fünf Sonaten: kritische
Ausgabe mit Einführung und Erläuterung
(Vienna: Universal Edition)
of Op. Sonate A dur Opus () of Op. Sonate E dur Opus () of Op. Sonate As dur Opus () of Op. Sonate C moll Opus ()
(Opus not completed or published)
abbreviated second edition: Beethoven, Die letzten
Sonaten: kritische Einführung und Erläuterung ed.
Oswald Jonas (Vienna: Universal Edition,–)
Tonwille, etc. Der Tonwille, ten issues (Vienna:
Tonwille-Flugblätterverlag [⫽ Universal Edition], –) [Tonwille/ is a double issue]
English translation: the present publication (in two volumes)
Meisterwerk i, ii, iii Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, three vols. (Munich:
Drei Masken Verlag,, , )
English translation: The Masterwork in Music, trans. Ian Bent, Alfred Clayton, William Drabkin, Richard Kramer, Derrick Puffett, John Rothgeb, and Hedi Siegel, ed. William Drabkin, three vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,, , )
