Jun 11 1932

Grafing, 11. Juni.(Tantiemenfreie

Musikstücke. — Ein wichtiges Ka­pitel für Vereinsleitungen.) Die „G e m a", eine Genossenschaft
zur Währung der Rechte der Tonsetzer, hat in den letzten Monaten verschiedentlich unseren
einheimi­schen Vereinen zu schaffen gemacht. Ta hatz. B. der Gesellenverein Grafing einen Ball

ten Zeiten und einer anderen erfolgreicheren Veranstaltung. Ta kommt geraume Zeit nach
dieser Veranstaltung ein vorgedruckter Schreibebrief vom Münchener Vertreter der "Gema", der
den Verein zur Zahlung von TP-Mark auffordert als Tantieme für anbewußtem Abend
aufgeführte,demmusikalischen Urheberschutz unterliegende Konzertstücke. Ter
Vereinsausschuß ist höchst überrascht, das Defizit nimmt nun ein unwahrschein­liches Ausmaß
an, wenn man diese Forde­rung begleichen wollte. Man weigert sich zunächst, wird von der
„Gema" (die die betr. Vereinsveranstaltung hat bespitzelnlas­sen, um zu erfahren, welche
Musikstücke gespielt wurden) über die Rechtmäßigkeit ihrer Forderung belehrt und zugleich
aufge­fordert, der „Gema" mit einem Pauschal abkommen beizutreten, um in Zukunft folchen
unangenehmen Tingen aus dem Weg zu gehen. Ter Verein gibt vielleicht nicht gleich klein bei,
man läßt es an das Gericht kommen und die Sache zieht sich hinaus und verursacht Kosten an
Geld und Zeit. Zum Schluß zieht man den kürzeren. Tiefe Er­fahrung haben schon einige
Vereine betrüblicherweise machen müssen. Aber auch die Herrschaft der „Gema" ist nicht von
ewigem estand. Es gibt nämlich genug Tonstücke, die jede Kapelle ohne Tantieme spie­len
kann. Ta hat der Berliner Monopolver­ag Gottschalk L Co. Berlin M 35 einen Katalog der
aufführungsfreien Musik zusammengestellt, den jeder Berufsmusi­ker, aber auch in Frage
kommende Vereineige Werke von der ernsten Konzertmusik wechslung ist also gesorgt. Wer
sich diesen Katalog kommen läßt, ist auf lange Zei hinaus mit wertvollem Material versehen.
Und bei irgendwelchen Rechtsstreitigkeiten erteilt der Monopolverlag auch sachgemäße
Auskunft.

Jun 11 1932

Grafing, June 11th. (Royalty-free

pieces of music. — An important chapter for club management.) The “G e m a”, a cooperative
for the currency of the rights of the tone setters, has caused problems for our local clubs on
various occasions in the last few months. For example, the Grafing journeymen's club is having
a ball

ten times and another more successful event. Some time after this event, a pre-printed letter
arrives from the Munich representative of "Gema", which asks the association to pay TP-Mark
as a royalty for concert pieces performed that evening that are subject to musical copyright
protection. The club committee is extremely surprised; the deficit is now reaching an unlikely
level if this demand were to be paid. You initially refuse, but are informed by the "Gema" (who
had the club event in question spied on in order to find out what pieces of music were played)
about the legality of their demand and at the same time asked to join the "Gema" with a flat-rate
agreement to avoid such unpleasant things in the future. The club may not give in straight away,
they will let the matter go to court and the matter will drag on and incur costs in terms of money
and time. In the end you draw the short straw. Unfortunately, some clubs have already had to go
through a lot of experience. But the rule of "Gema" is not permanent either. There are enough
pieces of music that any band can play without paying a royalty. The Berlin monopoly publisher
Gottschalk L Co. Berlin M 35 has put together a catalog of non-performable music that every
professional musician can use The monopoly publisher also provides appropriate information in
the event of any legal disputes, but also suitable works from serious concert music. Anyone who
receives this catalog will be provided with valuable material for a long time to come.

October 15th 1929

Richard Strauß und die österreichischeSteuerbehörde. Zwischen Mm Finanzministerium unö

Richard Strauß ist ein Konflikt ausgebrochen, d die Steuerbehörde vom Komponisten
Bezahlung einer großen Einkommensteuer verlangt. Die Ungelegenheit hat folgende
forgeschicht: for zwei Jahren wurde zwischen dem Komponisten und betn österreichischen
Staat ein Vertrag ab­geschlossen, demzufolge der Baugrund der Stranßschen villa in den Besitz
des Künstlers übergeht, dieser sich aber verpflichtet, die Origiualpartttur seiner „Aeghptischen
Helena" der National Bibliothek zu vermachen und außerdem fünf Jahre hindurch je 20 Abende
im Jahre in der Oper ohne Entgelt zu dirigieren. Beide Feile haben den Bertrag bisher pünftlich
erfüllt, sesst aber hat die Steuerbehönde die Ubficht fundgegeben Bertrag zu befteuern. Die
Steuerbehönde hat Bertrag den grossen Dollarbetrag zugrundegelegt, der Strauß für die
Partitur der „Helena" angeboten wurde und außerdem hundert Dirigentenhouorare in der Höhe
seines Dirigentengehaltes in Deutschland in Anrechnung gebracht. Strauss, der voraussetzen
mußte, daß der Vertragsabschluß mit dem­Staat ihm niemals eine Steuerverpflichtung
auferlegen würde, hat die Angelegenheit feinem Wiener Rechtsanwalt übergeben.

Kleine Mitteilungen

Richard Strauss dirigiert im I. Meisterkozert mit dem Orchester der Münchner Philharmoniker
am Donnerstag

Von dem jungen Münchner Komponisten Fritz Valentin ionvden in Nürnberg die
Solomusik...Silesius in einem Konzert der Nürnberger Madrigal-

Den offiziellen Leipziger Konzert-Auffakt bil­

und Otrbefter waren schon bei Konzertboginn Gegen­stand lebhafter Ovationen.

Richard Strauss and the Austrian tax authority. A conflict has broken out between the Ministry of
Finance and Richard Strauß because the tax authority is demanding that the composer pay a
large income tax. The inconvenience has the following history: for two years a contract was
concluded between the composer and the Austrian state, according to which the building site of
the Straßsche villa became the property of the artist, but the artist undertakes to give the
original score of his “Aegyptian Helena” to the National Library bequeath and also to conduct 20
evenings a year for five years at the opera without remuneration. Both files have so far fulfilled
the amount on time, but the tax authorities have to substantiate the amount on the balance
sheet. The tax authority has based the amount on the large dollar amount, which is the amount
Strauss was offered the score of "Helena" and also a hundred conductor's fees were taken into
account in the amount of his conductor's salary in Germany. Strauss, who had to assume that
concluding a contract with the state would never impose a tax obligation on him, referred the
matter to his Viennese lawyer.

Small messages

Richard Strauss conducts the first master concert with the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra on
Thursday

The solo music of the young Munich composer Fritz Valentin ionvden in Nuremberg...Silesius in
a concert of the Nuremberg Madrigal-

The official Leipzig concert start bil

and Otrbefter were already receiving lively ovations at the beginning of the concert.

At the general meeting of the Cooperative of German Tonsetters in Berlin, after thorough
discussion, a complete agreement was reached in the spirit of the traditional aspirations of the
cooperative board, which included Dr. Richard Strauss, Max Butting, Hugo Rasch. Arnold Ebel,
Heinz T h i e f f c tu

The bed of the

The attempt to more precisely determine the relationship of musicology - including its two
sub-disciplines of biography and music criticism, which are primarily oriented towards public
music discourse - to Richard Strauss and his work is more difficult than with other great
composers such as Liszt, Wag - ner, Brahms, Mahler, Reger and Schönberg, who prepared or
shaped the breakthrough to musical modernity from the middle of the 19th century. They were
relatively quickly placed on the scale of values of historically important, if not necessarily
popular, music, and even Reger's unwieldy work underwent continuous, albeit ideologically
co-opted, musicological exegesis shortly after his death. With Strauss, however, the situation
was specifically different. Despite the overwhelming, almost unmanageable and international
journalistic response to his music, most of the contributions and statements had the tenor of an
ideological debate that either focused on the moment of progress or the problem of the stylistic
classification of Strauss' musical language was fixed. Unless it has hagiographic features from
the outset, much of the posthumous Strauss literature well into the second half of the century
leaves the impression that the authors either consciously avoided a more in-depth analytical
and hermeneutic preoccupation or wanted to prove that This isn't even worth it.
Two circumstances must be taken into account: Firstly, it must be borne in mind that the borders
There was a fluidity between musicology, which was only slowly establishing itself as a
university subject around 1900, and the literary-philosophical varieties of writing about music -
this is also what Alfred Döblin and Rudolf Kassner said about music. Academic musicology, on
the other hand, saw itself as a philology that dealt with the study of older music; When she
intervened in the aesthetic debates surrounding contemporary music (like Hugo Riemann or
Guido Adler), this was rather the exception. In 1898, Strauss counted critics such as Oskar Bie,
Wilhelm Klatte, Carl Krebs and Heinrich Welti among his “best friends” (Strauss 1954, 210). He
felt understood by them, but less so by the academically established musicologists, with whom
he largely avoided contact. Even in his old age, he distanced himself from the views of the
“music scholars” Friedrich von Hausegger and Eduard Hanslick on program music (Strauss
1981, 165 f.). Secondly, the intellectual climate after 1945, which was characterized by
repression, must be taken into account, which made it difficult to write about a composer who
was an important cultural representative of the fallen German Reich and the Nazi regime. (The
radical aesthetic paradigm shift that was initiated with the rise of the new avant-gardes of
serialism and indeterminism did its part by bringing with it the demand for a compositional 'zero
hour', against which Strauss' music was hopeless outdated and even seemed reactionary.) Only
two generations after Strauss's death did a fundamental and continuous revision of the Strauss
image begin.
Some of the prerequisites of a confusing overall picture are discussed below, in which the
intensity and contradictions are almost more impressive than the abundance and diversity of the
voices that spoke up. The history of his impact also includes the fact that Strauss met with a
lasting response beyond the boundaries of musicology and criticism, for example from his fellow
composers Béla Bartók (Hungary), Paul Dukas, Claude Debussy (France) and Daniel Gregory
Mason (USA). Decades later, interpreters were added, especially the British conductor Norman
Del Mar and the eccentric and astute Canadian pianist Glenn Gould, who in 1962 said that
Strauss was “the greatest musical figure who has lived in this century” (Gould 1987, 84–92 ).
The provocation lay in the Janus-faced nature of the claim: on the one hand, Gould sounded the
horn of the older establishment, which had always considered Strauss to be the most important
composer after Wagner, and on the other hand, he opened a vacuum that the younger
musicologists refused to accept after the Second World War with regard to a critical debate with
Strauss.
II.
From the very beginning, Strauss' music captivated the professional public in a way that could
not be reconciled with the usual categories. As a result, biography and musical work became a
projection surface for prejudices and value judgments that can still be found in parts of Strauss
literature today. Relevance and consistency of arguments should therefore be approached with
caution; For a long time, Strauss research struggled with considerable historiographical and
philological desiderata (including a critical edition of his works and a list of sources that were in
the process of being created), which were long hampered by the unbroken presence of Strauss'
music-dramatic works in the world's great opera houses faded into the background and were
sometimes seen as annoying and sometimes negligible. The decades-long gap between the
nimbus of Strauss' unbroken music
among the general public, and the contempt that she – and thus also her personality – met (and
to some extent still faces) especially among German-speaking music scholars in the wake of
Adorno's criticism of Strauss, founded in the The factors already mentioned, but to which there
is also a constitutive dialectic of the relationship between music and the public, which can be
demonstrated paradigmatically in Strauss' artistic physiognomy. The question of musicology's
relationship to Strauss cannot be separated from these historical prerequisites or from the
choice of methods in order to do justice to the demands of the task. This also includes the
recognition and use of the methods of biographical research (both from an individual and social
psychological perspective) as an important instrument, a demand that is made in view of the
mutual fears of contact and reservations between biography and work-analytically oriented
musicology in the German-speaking world Space is still met with skepticism.
If one recapitulates the historical framework, one should first mention the polarization of
discourses about the aesthetic and social functions of music (or the art of music) that began in
France and Germany in the 1830s, which led to the so-called The familiar split led to the
factions of “progressives” and “conservatives”. Strauss's career in German-speaking musical
life, which he began at the end of the 1880s as an avowed Liszt admirer and thus as a
representative of progress, was accelerated by the increased tension in the relationship
between artistic action and critical reaction. It culminated in 1905 after the premiere of Salome
in the succés de scandale and thus in a reflex of calculated and ritualized indignation that was
advantageous for all sides - the artist, the critics and the big city audience conditioned for
sensationalism - and through which Strauss had a practical sense of indignation for some time
achieved an undisputed leading position within international musical life. When in 1911 he
thwarted the image of the “neutoner” with the Rosenkavalier and, after 1918, almost
demonstratively insisted on the musical language means of tonality, the provocative moment
remained with the opposite
Preserving the omens: Heavily criticized by representatives of new music, Strauss now offered
support to conservatives shocked by secession and revolution. Through all of this, the tried and
tested structural friend-enemy scheme remained intact until it became obsolete under the
circumstances of the National Socialist dictatorship.
The wealth of functions and offices that Strauss held as a composer, conductor and organizer
over the course of his life and which helped him achieve an unprecedented level of institutional
power in German musical life in the Third Reich is a fact familiar from Liszt and Wagner. But the
radius expanded enormously because Strauss received early recognition and journalistic
attention beyond Europe and in the USA; Together with his friend and competitor Mahler, he
became one of the first central figures in transatlantic music history. What distinguished Strauss
from Mahler and above all Wagner in demeanor and appearance was the absence and even
deliberate undermining of the romantic aura of the artistic genius. In the case of Wagner, it had
taken on almost cultic-hysterical characteristics after his death and could therefore be exploited
politically, while Mahler had and maintained the aura of an outsider and music saint who had
penetrated into the music metropolises (but was nevertheless one of the best-paid musicians in
the world). time belonged). Strauss' charisma was not defined by his mysterious personality, but
by the impact of his music. The attribute of “modernity,” which initially signaled the overcoming
of Romanticism in his music, would have been something he would later have gladly given up
again in order to replace it with a different aura, that of the complete concordance of intention
and realization – thus an apotheosis of the idea of a profession. to replace. However, this
idealization of objective perfection, which promised to overcome historical relativization, could
not be sustained in view of the social and political reality after 1918, even though the Third
Reich, through its combination of the political and aesthetic spheres, even represented the
unrealism of an art-dominated sphere Reality promised. Paul Bekker, one of the leading Strauss
exegetes, reacted
irritated and fascinated by Strauss's self-stylization, while Alfred Einstein said with
disappointment that Strauss only composed according to a "recipe" and had even become a
"Straussian" (Walter 2000, 250).
The answers to the question of how to interpret Strauss' music were controversial from the start.
As early as the end of the 1880s, the reactions to the performances of the first tone poems
ranged from astonished enthusiasm to sharp rejection and articulated an antinomy that would
soon establish itself as a consistent leitmotif. It is already negatively manifested in the old
Eduard Hanslick, for whom Don Juan (based on Friedrich Theodor Vischer) was the epitome of
"nervously heated and at the height of hot-brewed bliss already half [criminal] criminal
sensuality" and who was completely " “emancipated naturalism in instrumental music” (quoted in
Walter 2000, 119), which, as it were, dealt a death blow to absolute music. Hugo Riemann went
one step further with the view that, with his "skinning" as a program musician, Strauss had
betrayed the central task since Beethoven of the ethical deepening of musical language (in
Schopenhauer's sense, i.e. its metaphysical charge): "A composer renounces that If he has the
right to express his feelings through music and if he prefers to portray the feelings of others
instead, he is taking a disastrous step: he strips music of its very essence and continues to use
its means in a figurative, secondary sense: he gives up everything that is naive and
spontaneous for the sake of something that is reflected and intentional” (Riemann 1901, 758).
The authors of the popular work guides to the tone poems, on which Strauss had considerable
influence, precisely because he clearly recognized the changed function of the public (Werbeck
1996, 8): They emphasized that the “musical rationalist” Strauss had finally given music its own
Liszt's desired connection to the expressive richness of literature and fine art was made
possible (Walden 1912, IX). Hermann Kretzschmar was the first to adopt an objective attitude, in
his authoritative guide through the concert hall Strauss's Symphonic Fantasy