-
GdM Briefe HS, [1] Handwritten letter from Schenker to Ludwig Bösendorfer, undated [1889/1890]
Schenker asks for hire of a better piano.
-
OJ 11/42, [5] Handwritten postcard from Maximilian Harden to Schenker, dated September 29,
1893
Harden encourages articles from Schenker on Leoncavallo and
Bruckner.
-
OJ 71/42, [1] Handwritten message from Harden to Schenker, on handwritten letter from Hermann Woff
to Harden, dated October 20, 1893
Wolff encourages Harden to find him a collaborator for an article on music and
concert life; having read Schenker's article on Bruckner, he praises Schenker for his clear
and accurate understanding of Bruckner's music. Harden commends Wollf's praise to Schenker,
and suggests that he write an article about "conductors."
-
OJ 6/4, [23] Handwritten letter with envelope from Schenker to Moriz Violin, postmarked February 16,
1903
Schenker sends condolences to Violin on the death of his elder sister, Nina
Violin. — He reports on recent activities with Eduard Gärtner and card playing, on the current
Seligmann exhibition, and a recent experience at the Mayerhofer residence.
-
CA 1-2 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Cotta, dated November 8, 1905
This is Schenker's initial approach to Cotta: he asks the firm to consider
publishing volume I of his Neue Musikalische Theorien und Phantasien, explains his
anonymity, points out the book's attacks of certain composers, explains his choice of
preferred publisher.
-
CA 31 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Cotta, dated June 30, 1906
Schenker returns proofs, and draws two things to the attention of the
type-setter.
-
OJ 11/29, [1] Handwritten letter from Grunsky to Schenker, dated May 3, 1908
Grunsky thanks Schenker for revealing his identity as author of Harmonielehre.
— He asks Schenker's views on Bruckner, and on his own views of musical
form.
-
OJ 5/15, [2]-[3] Handwritten incomplete draft of a letter from Schenker to Grunsky, undated [?c. June
1, 1908]
Responding to Grunsky's request, Schenker gives his assessment of Bruckner's
music. First exploring common ground between him and Grunsky, he then offers "technical
reasons" why he regards Bruckner as "possessing minimal powers of invention," therefore
cannot call him a "master." In the process, he compares the "Komponisten" (composers) of the
present day unfavorably with the "Tonsetzer" (tonal craftsmen) of the past.
-
OJ 11/29, [3] Handwritten letter from Grunsky to Schenker, dated September 10, 1908
Grunsky acknowledges receipt of Schenker's Beitrag zur Ornamentik and two
letters; — He recognizes that he and Schenker hold "opposite views" on Bruckner's music but
welcomes Schenker's openness to discussion; — He counters Schenker's arguments on Bruckner's
approach to form, rhythm, theme, and musical character; — He admits his own "antipathy"
toward the music of Brahms.
-
OJ 5/15, [5] Handwritten incomplete draft of a letter from Schenker to Grunsky, undated
[?mid-late September 1908?]
Ecstasy is an end in itself in Bruckner's music, producing artificiality. Cf.
Beethoven, Brahms. — Cites instances in Bruckner's Seventh Symphony; his music is
technically backward. — Posterity will see both Bruckner and Berlioz as of lower status than
Haydn, Brahms, and other masters.
-
OJ 5/15, [6] Fragmentary handwritten draft letter from Schenker to Grunsky, undated [? mid‒late
September 1908?]
Discusses Bruckner's compositional technique, content, and "eccentric" form:
highly fragmentary document.
-
OJ 5/15, [4] Incomplete handwritten letter draft from Schenker to Grunsky, undated [?between
September 23 and December 31, 1908]
Schenker reports progress on his Kontrapunkt. — The main problem in music is
"how length can be produced." — He recollects his love for the pious Bruckner, and his
admiration for the latter's music, but speaks of its "defects," comparing the music
favorably with that of Tchaikovsky. Bruckner's stumbling block was form.
-
OJ 11/29, [4] Handwritten postcard from Grunsky to Schenker, postmarked November 5,
1908
Grunsky hopes to meet Schenker at the Haydn festival in Vienna. He urges
Schenker to read Halm on Bruckner.
-
OJ 5/35, [5] Handwritten draft letter from Schenker to Ernst Rudorff, dated October 10,
1909
Schenker, on receipt of the score of a Rudorff choral work, praises its
textural clarity and melodic articulation, comparing them favorably to the writing of the
current generation. — He reports the success of his own recent theory works, and inroads
made into the Vienna Academy for Music and Performance Art.
-
OC 1A/4-5 Handwritten letter, carbon copy, from Schenker to Hans Liebstoeckl, dated May 30,
1911
Schenker asks Liebstöckl to place an announcement [of a lecture series] in the
Illustrirtes Wiener Extrablatt.
-
OJ 10/1, [4] Handwritten letter from Dahms to Schenker, dated June 2, 1914
Dahms says he is not well liked in some Berlin quarters for opposing "fashionable
music." — He plans to study Schenker's theory autodidactically in Berlin, then come to Vienna in
the winter.
-
OJ 10/1, [19] Handwritten letter from Dahms to Schenker, undated but presumably May 1,
1916
Dahms laments the state of music and criticism in Berlin. — When the war is over
he plans to draw a line under his life so far and start again.
-
OJ 11/35, 4 Handwritten letter from Halm to Schenker, dated March 18, 1917
Halm attempts to identify the fundamental differences between their two views,
with reference to Beethoven, Bruckner and Brahms. He and Karl Grunsky have been estranged for
some years.
-
OJ 10/1, [31] Handwritten letter from Dahms to Schenker, dated November 9, 1917
Dahms is now with the War Ministry in Berlin. He comments on Korngold and
Bruckner.
-
OJ 10/1, [32] Handwritten letter from Dahms to Schenker, dated December 27, 1917
Dahms is expecting peace soon. Refers to Schenker's remarks on
Bruckner.
-
OJ 11/35, 7 Handwritten letter from Halm to Schenker, dated January 20, 1918
Acknowledges DLA 69.930/2, January 17, 1918. Schenker has accused him of a
contradiction, and he concedes it, referring to several of his publications. UE has not
responded to his request for review copies of Schenker's works, so suggests a reciprocal
exchange.
-
DLA 69.930/3 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Halm, dated February 7, 1918
Schenker writes scathingly of UE's business practices; describes his
counter-tactics, and his experiences over Niloff, Instrumentations-Tabelle. He will read all of
Halm's writings and asks for a reading-list
-
OJ 10/1, [47] Handwritten letter from Dahms to Schenker, dated November 28, 1919
Dahms discusses his future prospects for study, particular where to study (he
discusses conditions in several cities), and with whom. He asks Schenker's advice. He is
resolved to leave Vrieslander because of the latter's pessimism.
-
DLA 69.930/10 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Halm, dated September 25, 1922
Acknowledges OJ 11/35, 20 and composition; expects to be able to comment on
Halm's Klavierübung in Tonwille 4; reports Leipzig University's decision not to appoint him;
speculates on the impact of Kontrapunkt 2 and Der freie Satz; public difficulty in accepting
Urgesetze. — Aristide Briand: The importance of being well-read on a topic before commenting in
public: Schoenberg and Reger; newspapers. — Maximilian Harden: although faithful to Schenker,
Harden had not mastered the topics on which he wrote. — National Govenment: Schenker's
publishing plans, including "The Future of Humanity": man's anthropomorphic thinking is a
delusion, he needs to adapt to nature, to return to a primitive state, to abandon "development"
and "progress" and return to primordial laws; inferior man wants to "govern" (bowel wants to
become brain); Schenker deplores "artifice" (French) as against nature (German). — Things
French: praises German superiority over French in its joy of work. — Higher Plane: the German
should not abase himself before the Frenchman.
-
OC 12/7-9 Handwritten letter from Halm to Schenker dated November 6‒10, 1923
Halm has sent the published score of a string quartet to Schenker. —Patronage has
enabled him to publish three volumes of compositions; reports on current and past composition
activities and publications. —Discusses what he has learned from Schenker's theories, and
questions whether it would be a fault were Bruckner's symphonies not to contain the Urlinie;
Halm's book on Bruckner's symphonies has gone into its second edition. —Halm suspects that
Schenker may not "agree with" his compositions, and asks whether Schenker wishes to receives
further scores. —Halm considers socialism a "historical necessity."
-
JOB 94-3, [6] Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hammer dated December 2, 1923
Schenker has heard nothing from Eugen Steinhof; — he commends Hammer's
reaction to Halm's work, and comments unfavorably on the latter's musicianship, character,
and opinions; — he writes disparagingly of Robert Brünauer.
-
OC 12/10-12 Handwritten letter from Halm to Schenker dated dated February 1–6, 1924
Halm offers to send two of his books in return for Schenker's Opp. 109, 110, 111;
he discusses the role of improvisation in his own music; he seeks "corporeality" in music, and
its absence in Brahms troubles him; argues the case for Bruckner; asks Schenker to choose a
passage exhibiting non-genius in his or Oppel's music and discuss it in Der
Tonwille.
-
DLA 69.930/12 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Halm, dated April 3‒4, 1924
In response to matters raised by Halm in two previous letters, Schenker discusses
figuration, distinguishing between that which works only on the surface and that which arises
out of the middle and background, drawing on primal intervals. He also concedes that he heard
Bruckner improvising, and criticizes it adversely. He refers to Reger, and outlines plans for
forthcoming volumes of Der Tonwille.
-
OC 12/15-17 Handwritten letter from Halm to Schenker dated April 7, April 14, and May 6,
1924]
Halm again asks Schenker to point out an instance of non-genius in his [Halm's]
music. — Has long believed that foreground (= corporeality) has been neglected at the expense of
background (= spirituality) in music. — Defends Kurth against Schenker's critical remarks. —
Suggests an explanation for the Bruckner classroom incident. — Will send parts of his [A major]
String Quartet and promises a copy of his "Von Grenzen und Ländern". — Accepts offer of
assistance with publication costs. — Comments on Reger.
-
OJ 15/15, [20] Handwritten postcard from Weisse to Schenker, dated April 16, 1926
Schenker has, mistakenly, sent Weisse a copy of Reger's "Telemann" Variations
(Op. 134) instead of the "Bach" Variations (Op. 81) which he had lent him. Weisse asks what
is holding up the publication of the first Meisterwerk Yearbook, and suggests that Schenker
might write about Bruckner in the next one. A Brahms analysis would help strengthen his
position against his opponents. He also recommends that Schenker discuss a work that is less
than perfect, and cites Eduard Mörike's "Um Mitternacht" as an example of a poem whose
opening verses are beautiful but which deteriorates in meaning and poetic
quality.
-
OJ 9/34, [15] Handwritten letter from Cube to Schenker, dated November 7, 1928
Cube reports his activities in Cologne, especially his work with Heinrich Lemacher, who is a
"connoisseur of the Urlinie"; reports on his compositions. Will visit Hupka and Albersheim next
time.
-
OJ 13/25, [5] Typewritten letter from Rinn to Schenker, dated March 7, 1929
Rinn apologizes for the small format in which the autograph of Schubert's
minuet was reproduced for Schenker's article "Eine Rettung der klassischen Musik-Texte." He
has publicized the work, and intends to send copies of it to university music departments
and inform other newspapers and journals of it. He expresses thanks for the efforts that
Schenker made in contributing to Der Kunstwart, and for his remarks on Bruckner's Ninth
Symphony.
-
OJ 11/32, [5] Typed letter from Robert Haas to Schenker, dated November 29, 1930
Accepts Schenker's invitation to Hans Weisse's lecture, and gives two pieces
of information.
-
OJ 15/16, [69] Handwritten letter from Weisse to Schenker, dated March 19, 1931
Weisse asks Schenker’s approval to approach Furtwängler about Der freie Satz,
presumably to seek financial assistance for its publication. He has been given a copy of a
letter from Mozart to Baron van Swieten, but expresses his doubts about the tone of one of
Mozart’s phrases; he hopes to meet Schenker soon, to talk about Bruckner.
-
OJ 12/6, [9] Handwritten letter from Jonas to Schenker, dated April 17, 1931
Acknowledges OJ 5/18, 6. Discusses plan for collected publication of Schenker's
essays and reviews. — Gives news of his own forthcoming publication.
-
OC 18/37-38 Handwritten letter from Furtwängler to Schenker, dated December 10, 1932
Furtwängler shares Schenker's assessment of Ludwig Karpath, and has not
written a letter for publication. — He has been exploring possibilities for Schenker in
Berlin, particularly taking over a masterclass at the Akademie der Künste, with additional
lectures at the Stern'sches Conservatory. — He has heard from Hans Weisse. — He encloses a
review by Herman Roth, and comments on the latter's character.
-
OJ 89/9, [1] Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hoboken, undated [August 15, 1933]
In returning it, Schenker comments on book by Gottfried Benn, and reports that
Der freie Satz is nearing completion.
-
OJ 89/9, [2] Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hoboken, undated [October 7, 1933]
Schenker acknowledges receipt of money transfer; — alludes to Jonas's forthcoming
book and two other books now in progress about his work; — refers to a review of his Oktaven u.
Quinten that misunderstands the nature of Brahms's collection.
-
OJ 89/6, [11] Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hoboken, dated December 25, 1933
Schenker speaks of recent articles by O. E. Deutsch and I. Citkowitz, and
reports on former pupils Hupka and Breisach.