Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition [1 ed.] 9781351558761, 1351558765

Citation preview

M AX REG ER A ND KARL STRAUBE

Max Reger and Karl Straube Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON University o f North Dakota

First published 2003 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © Christopher Anderson 2003 Christopher Anderson has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this Work. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Anderson, Christopher Max Reger and Karl Straube : perspectives on an organ performing tradition 1. Reger, Max, 1873-1916 - Criticism and interpretation 2. Straube, Karl, 1873-1950 - Criticism and interpretation 3. Organ music - Interpretation (Phrasing, dynamics, etc.) 4. Organ (Musical instrument) - Performance I. Title 786.5T43 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Anderson, Christopher, 1966 July 13Max Reger and Karl Straube : perspectives on an organ performing tradition / Christopher Anderson, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0-7546-3075-7 (alk. paper) 1. Reger, Max, 1873-1916. Organ music. 2. Straube, Karl, 1873-1950.3. Organ music-interpretation (Phrasing, dynamics, etc.) I. Title. ML410.R25 A63 2002 786.5'092'243-dc21 2002038255 ISBN 13: 978-0-7546-3075-3 (hbk)

Contents

List o f Figures List o f Tables Preface Acknowledgements

vii xi xiii xv

Introduction 1

2

3

1

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects of the Relationship, 1898-1916 Max Reger, the ‘potent genius’ Karl Straube, the ‘scholarly intelligence’ Reger, Straube, and the beginnings of collaboration

10 15 28

Reger’s Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

47

Questions and evidence Straube’s musical sense and his playing of Reger Issues of influence

47 58 97

Reger’s Music under Straube’s Editorship, 1903-1938

129

Johann Sebastian Bach: Schule des Triospiels (1903) Max Reger: Drei Orgelstücke op. 59/7-9 (1912) Max Reger: Präludien und Fugen (1919) Max Reger: Phantasie über den Choral ‘Ein feste Burg ' op. 27 (1938) Karl Matthaei: Vom Orgelspiel ‘Lighter paper for lady cigarette smokers’: thoughts on a complete Reger edition 4

9

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory and Church Music Institute, 1907-1948 Reger and Straube: relations to Leipzig ‘The soul of the German people’: Straube and a nationalist organ repertory

V

130 134 149 151 156 160

185 185 198

vi

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Teaching and performance within Straube’s Leipzig curriculum The Leipzig Conservatory organ and the implications of its history

213 219

Appendices i

Documented Performances of Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory, or at Concerts Sponsored by the Conservatory, 1905-1949

269

Documented Performances of Organ Music at the Leipzig Conservatory, or at Concerts Sponsored by the Conservatory, 1900-1950

285

Documented Performances of Reger’s Music at the Motetten of St. Thomas Church/Leipzig, 1903-1914

323

Documented Performances of Organ Music at the Motetten of St. Thomas Church/Leipzig, 1903-1914

329

5

Karl Straube Performs, 1893-1922

351

6

The Concert Hall Organ of the Leipzig Conservatory, 1887-1944

385

2

3

4

Bibliography Index

389 423

List of Figures

2.1

Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig, 1904 (1908?)

66

2.2

Reger: Fantasy and Fugue in D minor op. 135b Gaily proof p. 14 (fugue mm. 33-45) with pasteovers and revisions in Reger’s hand

68

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Ein ’f este Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27 Straube autograph, mm. 20-26

72

Reger: Fantasy and Fugue in C minor op. 29 Straube autograph, mm. 40-44 (fugue subject and answer)

72

Reger: Fantasy and Fugue in C minor op. 29 Straube autograph, mm. 59-64

73

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 80-83 (fugue subject)

74

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet a u f ruft uns die Stimme ’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 131-136

75

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 154-159

75

Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Phantasie mm. 14-23

77

2.10 Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Phantasie mm. 37-42

79

2.11 Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Passacaglia beginning

80

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

vii

viii Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

2.12 Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Passacaglia mm. 120-128 2.13

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Ein ’f este Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27 Straube autograph, mm. 116-117

82

83

2.14 Reger: Fantasy and Fugue in C minor op. 29 Straube autograph, mm. 134-136

83

Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Passacaglia mm. 97-98

84

2.15

2.16 Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale 'Wie schön leucht ’t uns der Morgenstern ’ op. 40/1 Straube autograph, mm. 39-40 2.17

2.18

84

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 96-97

84

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet a u f ruft uns die Stimme ’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 123-125

85

2.19 Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Intermezzo mm. 4-8

101

2.20 Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Intermezzo mm. 22-32

103

3.1

3.2

3.3 3.4

Bach/Reger/Straube: Schule des Triospiels Pedal passages with Straube’s pedaling indications

133

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), mm. 1-10

137

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 1-9

138

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), mm. 27-35

140

List o f Figures

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 27-34

141

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), pedal mm. 16-18

144

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), mm. 18-23

146

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 18-23

147

Reger: Gloria in excelsis op. 59/8 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 22-31

148

3.10 Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Ein ’f este Burg ist unser Gott ’ op. 27 Edition Karl Straube (1938), mm. 1-7 4.1

ix

152

Königliches Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Examination program of 17 March 1905, pp. 2-3

194

Königliches Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Examination program of 6 March 1906, p. 1

196

Königliches Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Examination program of 23 March 1906, p. 1

197

Karl Straube: Alte Meister des Orgelspiels, 1904 Original title page, with dedication ‘to the young master Max Reger’

208

E. F. Walcker: Orgelbau : Opus 491 for the Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig, 1887 Contract facsimile, p. 1

221

4.6

Max Reger at the Leipzig Conservatory, 1908 and 1911

230

4.7

Landeskonservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Günther Ramin’s dedicatory program of 2 October 1927 for Sauer Opus 1343

235

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

X

4.8

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Landeskonservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Diagram of Wilhelm Sauer Opus 1343 from February 1940

239

List of Tables

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

4.1

Weiden (Oberpfalz): Stadtpfarrkirche (Simultankirche, Michaeliskirche)

14

Berlin: Marienkirche Joachim Wagner 1719-1723

17

Berlin: Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche Wilhelm Sauer 1895 (Opus 660)

22

Berlin: Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche Wilhelm Sauer 1897 (additions to Opus 660)

24

Wesel am Rhein: Dom St. Willibrord Wilhelm Sauer 1895 (Opus 650)

30

Leipzig: Thomaskirche Wilhelm Sauer 1888 and 1902 (Opus 501); 1908 (Opus 1012)

53

Basel (Schweiz): Münster Friedrich Haas 1855

91

Heinrich Reimann: theoretical construction of a register crescendo

95

Bad Salzungen (Thüringen): Ev.-luth. Stadtkirche Wilhelm Sauer 1909 (Opus 1025), composition of the Walze

97

E. F. Walcker Orgelbau: Opus 491 for the Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig, 1887 Transcription of the contract

XI

222

Preface

In 1911 at the outset of his Harmonielehre, Arnold Schoenberg voiced the ancient sentiment that inquiry itself is to be prized more highly than the par­ ticular answers it may or may not yield. If the thought seems out of place as an introduction to a harmony text, this is because mainstream thinking about ‘analysis’ is conditioned by a line of pre-established questions which only rarely lead to insights beyond those of university theory textbooks. Schoen­ berg, who also observed that musicians are not used to thinking, might well have said something similar about music historians. Indeed, the situating of a performer’s repertory in an historical web—involving not only various modes of traditional analysis, but also points of intellectual history, politics, religion, and so on—might be thought in some sense foreign to the aims of the performer, since the musician (even the one concerned with so-called ‘authenticity’) naturally desires clear answers which will guide the exigen­ cies of actual performance. The assurance of a ‘right’ answer, often trans­ lated into notions about the composer’s intent, determines the direction of the hunt even before the dogs are loosed. When music history sets itself the task of accounting for a performing tradition—particularly one which, like Karl Straube’s Reger interpretation, has about it an undeniably authorita­ tive voice due to its proximity to the composer—it must, like Schoenberg, articulate from the beginning that understanding (and hence playing) will be enriched more by the search than by the answers. That performers and audiences find Reger’s music difficult to understand and assess is not in itself a contemporary phenomenon. Since Reger’s day, performers have struggled to make sense of his scores, and Reger’s music often has been either dismissed as a needlessly dense contrapuntal and chromatic landscape or subjected to zealous but ultimately unconvincing performance. This situation, which makes of Reger something of a problem which resists solution, has fed a belief among Reger enthusiasts that there must be a ‘right’ way to realize his music. Aside from Reger himself, several performers in the composer’s circle began to navigate the Regerian musical lab­ yrinth with consistent and apparently convincingresults—the violinist Henri Marteau, for example, and the pianist Frieda Hodapp—but the early, vigorous advocacy of the Berlin organist Karl Straube has contributed almost overwhelmingly to Reger’s being known still today first as an organ com­ poser. That same advocacy, and the resulting close relationship between Straube and Reger, has rightly made Straube a starting point for many discussions about Reger interpretation for about a century, and it serves like­ wise as the object of the present study. xiii

xiv Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Straube’s vast experience with the organs of Reger’s time, his emergence from the same late Romantic musical culture which informs Reger’s think­ ing and taste, and his close association with Reger early on—all these fac­ tors contribute to the authoritative foundation on which Straube’s ideas about the composer (whether philosophical or practical) rest. But, especially for performing organists who might be seeking here an ‘authentic’ Reger, it is important to note that Straube’s musical answers do not constitute either a right or wrong approach (and there has been no shortage of voices on both sides), only a particularly informed one. To ask whether Reger would have played his organ works differently had he been as technically accomplished as Straube is not only to ask a question with an obvious answer, but also to direct the issue into a line of thinking that is, bluntly put, simply irrelevant. Extremely relevant, on the other hand, is the extent to which Reger’s organ music became known in the first place under Straube’s hands and feet, and the reasoning behind Straube’s particular solutions given the historical and musical problems he thought he faced. Such investigation ought serve not only a deeper understanding of an era: when put in the service of good musi­ cal sense by contemporary performers, it might promote responsible music making that well serves Reger’s music. As musicians of our own time, we might be reminded in the process that the time-honored relationship between exemplum and imitatio is dynamic rather than static.

Christopher Anderson Grand Forks, North Dakota, August 2002

Acknowledgements

It is of course impossible to name all the individuals who have helped guide me from my initial interest in this topic through its realization as a degree dissertation at Duke University, and finally through the revisions resulting in the present monograph. Probably the most fundamental catalyst for the work was my organ study in the late 1980s with Robert T. Anderson, who intro­ duced me to the works of Reger and the questions about their performance. My graduate committee at Duke during the 1990s, chaired by the inimitable Professor Peter Williams, was instrumental for the shape of the original text, retained in essence in this book. I am especially grateful to Professor Williams and Professor Robert Parkins of Duke for their many readings of the drafts. Also impossible to omit from these acknowledgments are those institutions which hold many of the documents essential to the study: these include especially the librarians and archivists of St. Thomas Church and the Hochschule fur Musik und Theater in the city of Leipzig, particularly Hilde­ gund Rüger, now retired as archivist for the latter institution; Dr. Susanne Popp and Dr. Jürgen Schaarwächter of the Max-Reger-Institut in Karlsruhe and Dr. Susanne Shigihara, formerly of the MRI, for much information, counsel, and support; Herta Müller of the Reger Archive at the Staatliche Museen, Meiningen; Peter Dohne of W. Sauer Orgelbau, Müllrose; and Gerhard Walcker of E. F. Walcker Orgelbau, Kleinblittersdorf. Information about relevant extant organs was made possible largely by generous access to those instruments granted me by Ullrich Böhme and Almuth Reuther of St. Thomas Church, Leipzig; Stephan Audersch of the Michaeliskirche, Leipzig; Andreas Sieling of the Domkirche, Berlin; and especially Klaus Schmidt of the Stadtkirche, Bad Salzungen, whose unending hospitality and expertise made possible the recording which accompanied the original dis­ sertation. I must also thank those individuals from Karl Straube’s circle who generously gave of their time and resources to speak with me about various aspects of the study: these include particularly Dr. Dieter Ramin of Ingel­ heim a. Rh., Professor Amadeus Webersinke of Dresden, and Walter Heinz Bernstein of Lindenberg. Five institutions are due particular recognition for making possible the appearance of many of the volume’s illustrations, without which portions of this study would be almost meaningless. Figures 2.2—2.20 appear by kind permission of the Max-Reger-Institut, Karlsruhe; Figures 3.2—3.10 and 4.4 by permission of C. F. Peters Verlag, Frankfurt a.M.; Figures 4.1— 4.3 and 4.7 by permission of the Hochschule für Musik und Theater “Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy,” Leipzig; Figure 4.5 by permission of E. F. Walcker XV

xvi

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Orgelbau, Kleinblittersdorf; and Figure 4.8 by permission of W. Sauer Orgel­ bau, Frankfurt (Oder). The two anonymous readers who examined portions of the manuscript for Ashgate made many helpful comments. I must thank, too, my colleagues at the University of North Dakota for their unqualified support through the revisions, and of these I must single out Whitney Berry for her expertise in designing the musical graphics which I, in an advanced state o f technical illiteracy, would have done by hand. The preparation of the final copy was made possible largely by a generous grant from the Office of Reseach and Program Development at the University of North Dakota, and I thank Ute Kraidy of Ute Kraidy Graphic Design, Silver Spring, Maryland, for her invaluable work in this regard. Last but in no sense least, the realization of the book would not have been possible were it not for the help, counsel, and love of my wife Lisa, who has stood by me through a long and arduous process.

Introduction

I haue giuen the Rule, where a Man cannot fitly play his owne Part: If he haue not a Frend, he may quit the Stage. - Francis Bacon, ‘O f Frendship’ (Essayes or Covnsels, Civili and Morali, 1625) The career of Max Reger (1873-1916) distinguishes itself from that of his prominent German and Austrian contemporaries—Mahler and Strauss, for example—in that Reger first gained widespread recognition as a composer of organ music. That a young composer, struggling to attract critical attention to himself, could or would use the organ as an important means to his break­ through is certainly unique to Reger in his own time and place. At the turn of the century the organ retained, at least in Germany, a primary association with the Church and its liturgy, whatever the contributions of composers like Mendelssohn, Liszt, and Rheinberger to the contrary. Given the overwhelm­ ingly secular climate of late Wilhelmine Germany’s musical mainstream, the nature of Reger’s initial success stands in stark contrast to his contempo­ raries’ work in the fields of symphonic music and Wagnerian musical drama. It is Reger’s organ music from which his fame— or notoriety—first arose, and that same repertory is the principal basis for his position in modem music histories.1 The close association of Max Reger with the organ arose in part from his formative years in the provincial atmosphere of a Catholic Bavarian vil­ lage, and from his correspondingly conservative musical studies with Adal­ bert Lindner and Hugo Riemann. But the fact that he turned his attention so vigorously to the production of organ music at the turn of the century is undoubtedly due to the encouragement of the young Berlin organist Karl Straube (1873-1950). At the time of their first acquaintance in 1898, Reger had experienced little success in having his music performed, and he had much to gain from the advocacy of a rising virtuoso who viewed his musi­ cal style so positively. Straube, in turn, came to Reger’s music via the Berlin organ circle of Heinrich Reimann. Like Reimann, Straube believed that German organ music and organ playing had fallen into degeneracy during the nineteenth century, and he encouraged Reger’s musically daring, techni­ cally demanding scores for the betterment of German organ art generally and for the advancement of his own concert career specifically. The two men maintained a close friendship until Reger’s untimely death in 1916, by which time the composer had produced a sizeable corpus of organ music, most of it 1

2

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

from the years 1898 to 1903, largely in response to Straube’s concert needs. Although other organists took up Reger’s cause almost as early as Straube, none of them had the close personal friendship with the composer Straube could claim, giving him a perceived absolute authority in matters of interpre­ tation. It is difficult to know the exact nature of Straube’s authority in matters of Reger performance, particularly in the early years. It is clear, though, that Straube’s solutions to the performance problems offered by Reger’s scores were respected among Straube’s colleagues already in the first decade of the new century,2 and that these solutions were considered effective enough to legitimize the republication, still in Reger’s lifetime, of some smaller pieces from op. 59 in a new, ‘practical’ edition by Straube.3 This editorial practice, whereby Straube often significantly altered Reger’s performance directives, would manifest itself again in 1919 and 1938.4 By the end of his life, Straube had agreed to the herculean task of producing a new edition of the complete organ works, an undertaking he presumably never began. Naturally, the existing editions supply important information about Straube’s performance practices and about how those practices changed over a long period. Such evidence becomes even more important in light of the fact that Straube left no acoustic recordings of Reger’s music and that most of his performance materials were destroyed during World War II or otherwise lost. Only the autograph copies prepared by Reger, some of them clearly used by Straube in his first performances, are available for study today. In any case, no such performance materials exist from after 1918, since Straube appeared as an organist very infrequently after he assumed the post of Thomaskantor in that year, and then only with earlier repertories. Furthermore, Straube never wrote down his views about Reger, his music, or its performance in any systematic way. We must instead glean these statements from a number of essays, reviews, and private letters spanning a period of nearly fifty years, often evincing stark contradictions depending on the time period or the audience. Straube’s close friendship with Reger gave him not only considerable interpretive license, but also an active part in the genesis of the works them­ selves. Hence, many of the revisions undertaken by the composer, ranging from large-scale deletion of material to modification of performance direc­ tives, derive from Straube’s notions of musical architecture and performance practice, and these are worthy of study in their own right. Perhaps no other aspect of Straube’s activity has gained him such an unfavorable reputation in recent years. However, the extent and nature of his involvement has not yet been subjected to any kind of thoroughgoing study, and a good critical edi­ tion of Reger’s music on that basis has yet to appear. Particularly problem­ atic in this regard is the case of the First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33, a work Straube considered pivotal for Reger’s style and one in which he was deeply involved during the formative stages. Straube’s copy is replete not

Introduction

3

only with marginal notes and textual revisions in his own and Reger’s hand, but also with practical markings (articulations, phrasings, pedalings, etc.) which undoubtedly aided his performances. Much of what follows addresses such evidence in terms of performance practice and also with a mind toward Straube’s role as a kind of co-composer, or Mitkomponist. Finally, a study of the Reger-Straube relationship and its effect on organ performance would not be complete without consideration of the profes­ sional ties both men had to the musical institutions of Leipzig, particularly St. Thomas Church and the Conservatory of Music. Straube settled in Leipzig in 1903, on the occasion of his prestigious appointment as organist to the Bach church. Reger followed in 1907, when both he and Straube gained teaching appointments at the Conservatory, Straube for organ and Reger for counter­ point, harmony, and composition. Two years after Reger’s death, Straube gave up his performance career to become Cantor of St. Thomas, and he continued to teach organ at the Conservatory. By the time of his retirement in 1948, he had assembled a vast circle of students, many of them with promi­ nent careers of their own, and he had established Reger as one o f the very most important canonical composers in the organist’s curriculum at Leipzig. Reger became one of the structural pillars in a Germanic repertory rooted in the ‘old masters’ (among them Lübeck, Pachelbel, Buxtehude, Walther), proceeding through Johann Sebastian Bach to Reger, then onward to the best music of the modem period. For Straube and his Leipzig school, at the heart of the canon was a logical and continuous line of organic development, with a defining center in the music of Bach, the genius loci of Leipzig itself. While Reger was still alive, Straube understood him as the composer in whom was recovered the lost art of Bach and the ‘old masters.’5 After Reger’s death and the rise of the neoclassicizing Orgelbewegung, he became the indis­ pensable link between the very distant past and the aesthetic vision of the immediate present, embodied in figures from Straube’s own Leipzig circle like Johann Nepomuk David and Hermann Grabner. Reger’s position in the Leipzig organists’ canon was regarded in some sense as a justification for the direction of modem organ music in the 1920s through the 1940s, since it was his style (and not that of Rheinberger before him or Karg-Elert after him) that served as the most immediate reference point from which the new music might organically emerge. Given the number of prominent organists and pedagogues who issued from Straube’s Leipzig school, it is not surpris­ ing that the ‘Buxtehude-Bach-Reger-David’ canon is still largely operative in German music schools today. However one defines a performance tradition for Reger’s organ music, it is important to understand how the unique atmosphere of Leipzig contrib­ uted to the development, modification, and propagation of that tradition. At the end of this study, several appendices show Reger’s music in context of the larger Leipzig repertory, both in concerts of the Conservatory and under

4

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Straube at St. Thomas Church. O f course, this information interests not only on account of Reger’s place in it per se, but also because of other questions it helps answer (What was the mainstream repertory before Straube arrived in Leipzig? What composers, like Felix Mendelssohn and Joseph Rheinberger, were prominent at the end of the nineteenth century and then receded in importance as Straube began to make his influence felt? What was the nature of J. S. Bach’s continued prominence through a period of fifty years?). The appendices do show, though, a very concrete tradition of Reger performance in a specific place during a specific period, and as such they should contrib­ ute to a performance history of that repertory. The many-faceted nature of the Reger-Straube relationship yields much useful information for the practicing organist and the historian alike, and it is virtually impossible to discuss fully any one aspect without reference to several others. I intend this book to contribute as much toward a broad per­ formance history as to the specific details of a performance practice, and as much toward a general portrait of German conservatory music education as to the cultural history of a city very much aware of its own musical tra­ ditions. On one level, the work addresses Max Reger and Karl Straube as musicians, the intersection of their careers, and the way each influenced the ideals, professional success, ultimately even the historical perception of the other. On another level, it addresses the larger environment in which these events took place, an environment beset with constant upheaval on political, economic, religious, intellectual, and artistic fronts. Although they were exact contemporaries, Straube outlived Reger by thirty-four years, and during this time he was caught up in the consequences of profound cultural changes associated with the downfall of the Wilhelmine Reich, the unsuccessful struggle of a democratic Weimar Republic, Hitler’s reactionary regime, the onset of Soviet communism, and the unprecedented destruction of two World Wars. Obviously, these events came to bear upon the German mindset and, by extension, its approach to the writing of history and performance of music. Straube and his circle were no exception to this phenomenon, and Reger’s music was often reinterpreted in light of new ideals which themselves extended quite beyond the mere surface features of a performance style. It is not my purpose to justify or to condemn Straube’s changing interpre­ tations in pursuit of an illusive performance ideal for Reger’s music. Rather, I will consider the motivating forces behind Straube’s practices, forces to be found, I believe, as much in the broad-based cultural shifts mentioned here as in Straube’s own personality. Straube’s view of Reger as an extremely important composer of canonical organ music had developed significantly already by the new century’s first decade, and that view was buttressed in Straube’s mind not only by certain absolute musical and aesthetic considerations, but also by a very complex philosophy of social histoiy

Introduction

5

in which seventeenth- and eighteenth-century (principally Protestant) piety, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Enlightenment, and various contempo­ rary German Bewegungen constituted the most prominent elements. The fact that Straube formed such a positive view of Reger is as much a commentary on what Straube believed were the highest societal and religious ideals in Western culture as it was on the external worth of Reger’s music per se. I aim at a fresh evaluation of the Reger-Straube relationship in light of such contextualization, particularly in view of Straube’s repeated attempts to assess the composer anew over a period of fifty years. There exists as yet no major critical study of Reger, Straube, and the effect of their collaboration on a half century of performance practice. Literature on Straube has been largely panegyrical as a matter of tradition, most of it written by students who knew and studied with him at Leipzig. Some o f this literature is useful from the standpoint of performance practice, like Heinz Wunderlich’s ‘Karl Straubes Vortragsbezeichnungen in der Symphonischen Phantasie und Fuge op. 57.’6 In recent years, though, scholars have begun to adopt a more critical stance toward Straube, sometimes radically calling into question his editions, his teaching methods, and his influence on Reger’s compositions. O f these, the work of Wolfgang Stockmeier (‘Karl Straube als Reger-Interpret’),7 the Straube pupil Johannes Piersig (‘So ging es allen­ falls’),® Susanne Popp (critical edition of the Reger-Straube correspon­ dence),9 and Günther Hartmann (Kar/ Straube: ‘Das Ganze war ein Mythos Karl Straube: ein Altgardist der NSDAP)10 offer the most interesting depar­ tures from the traditional Straube image. Along these lines as well should be counted Bengt Hambraeus’ essay ‘Karl Straube, Old Masters and Max Reger.’11 Further notice should be given to Kathryn Schenk’s dissertation, Heinrich Fleischer: The Organist’s Calling and the Straube Tradition12 and her attempt to address issues of Straube’s Leipzig school through the per­ spective of one of its most important living students. Hermann Wilske’s work (Max Reger: Zur Interpretation in seiner Zeit)n turns up much useful information about Reger’s own aesthetics and performing habits, and about the composer’s attempt to create a performance tradition around himself. In terms of the German Organ Reform Movement and its relationship to a number of repertories, Roman Summereder’s extensive Aufbruch der Klänge: Materialien, Bilder, Dokumente zu Orgelreform und Orgelkultur im 20. Jahrhundert14 presents a representative collection of source materi­ als. Michael Kaufmann’s study Orgel und Nationalsozialismus15 extensively addresses both the political ideologies which enveloped the organ and its repertory in Nazi Germany and the role of Straube’s Leipzig school within that environment. Finally, since the completion of this text in 1999 in the form of a dissertation at Duke University, two works of particular relevance to its content have appeared. In Der junge Reger: Briefe und Dokumente vor 1900,16 Susanne Popp has allowed for a more thorough study of Reger’s

6

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

early development than had been possible before, with insight into the mind­ set that a troubled and struggling Reger brought to his initial friendship with Karl Straube in 1898. Antonius Bittmann’s valuable dissertation Negotiating Past and Present: Max Reger and Fin-de-siècle Modernisms'1 places the reception of Reger’s person and his music within the wider con­ text of a nuanced intellectual history, effectively questioning—for the first time to this extent—the ways in which the modernist categories of tradition and innovation have been applied to Reger. This study will examine Reger’s music and its performance tradition by means of four broad approaches, each developing issues and questions that come to bear, of course, upon the other three. I begin with the Reger-Straube relationship as such: the friendship of the two men between 1898 and 1916, and the professional and personal backgrounds each brought to that friend­ ship. The second chapter examines more closely Straube’s involvement in the genesis of Reger’s music, his first performances of Reger, particulars of his musicianship, and the organ ideal of the time. The third chapter addresses Straube’s role as an editor, including the important correspondence between Straube and Oskar Söhngen in 1946 about a complete edition of Reger’s organ works. The study closes with a discussion of the cultivation of Reger’s music at Leipzig, particularly at the Conservatory and Straube’s Church Music Institute (Kirchenmusikalisches Institut), and the idea of a ‘Leipzig school of organists’ in general. Because the material they address involves a period of time extending well beyond Reger’s death, both Chapters 3 and 4 intersect issues of the so-called Organ Reform Movement and Reger’s place within it, at least with respect to Straube’s editorial and pedagogical prac­ tices.

Notes 1.

2. 3. 4.

5.

The contemporary view of Reger as primarily an organ composer is informed by similar views arising during the composer’s own time: it is itself an ‘historical’ attitude. It should be noted, though, that Reger’s contributions to other genres surpass, in quantity and often in quality, those in organ music. See e.g. Walter Fischer, Über die Wiedergabe der Orgel-Kompositionen Max Regers (Cöln: Tischer & Jagenberg, 1910). Max Reger, Drei Orgelstücke op. 59 Nr. 7-9, ed. Karl Straube (Leipzig: C.F. Peters, 1912). Max Reger, Präludien und Fugen opp. 59, 65,80, and 85, ed. Karl Straube (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1919). Max Reger, Phantasie über den Choral ‘Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott' op. 27 (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1938). See, for example, Straube’s dedication of his Alte Meister des Orgelspiels (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1904) to ‘the young master Max Reger’ [Dem jungen Meister Max Reger

Introduction

6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

11.

12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17.

7

zu eigen], and his statement in the Choralvorspiele alter Meister (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1907) that ‘Only at the turn of the XIX. century, Max Reger in his chorale-based works composed monuments for German art music that are equal to the creations of past eras and, like the latter, may be called to withstand time.* [Erst um die Wende des XIX. Jahr­ hunderts hat Max Reger in seinen Choralwerken der deutschen Tonkunst Denkmäler gesetzt, die den Schöpfungen der vergangenen Epochen gleichwertig sind und berufen sein dürften, wie jene die Zeiten zu überdauern.] Straube’s attitude—that the art of Bach had been lost after 1750 and that it reemerged first with Reger—originated early on during his studies with Heinrich Reimann, and it resulted in the neglect of certain nineteenth-century composers who had a solid place in the Leipzig curriculum prior to Straube’s appointment there. Heinz Wunderlich, ‘Karl Straubes Vortragsbezeichnungen in der Symphonischen Phan­ tasie und Fuge op. 57,’ in Zur Interpretation der Orgelmusik Max Regers, ed. Hermann J. Busch (Kassel: Merseburger, 1988), 64-71. Wolfgang Stockmeier, ‘Karl Straube als Reger-Interpret,’ in Max Reger 1873-1973: Ein Symposion, ed. Klaus Röhring (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1974), 21-29. Johannes Piersig, ‘So ging es allenfalls mit (VI) mit Thomaskantor Prof. D Dr. Karl Straube,’ Der Kirchenmusiker 29 (1978): 112-119. Max Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes ElsaReger-Stiftung, ed. Susanne Popp, no. 10 (Bonn: Dümmler, 1986). Günther Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule: Das Ganze war ein Mythos ’ (Bonn: Verlag für systematische Musikwissenschaft GmbH, 1991). Idem, Karl Straube: ein Alt­ gardist der NSDAP (Lahnstein, by the author, 1994). Bengt Hambraeus, ‘Karl Straube, Old Masters and Max Reger: A Study in 20th Century Performance Practice,’ Svensk tidskriftför musikforskning 69 (1987): 37-73; reprint with revisions in Reger-Studien 5: Beiträge zur Regerforschung (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1993), 41-72. Kathryn Eleanor Schenk, Heinrich Fleischer: The Organist’s Calling and the Straube Tradition (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1989). Hermann Wilske, Max Reger: Zur Interpretation in seiner Zeit (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1995). Roman Summereder, Aufbruch der Klänge: Materialien, Bilder, Dokumente zu Orgelre­ form und Orgelkultur im 20. Jahrhundert (Innsbruck: Edition Helbling, 1995). Michael Gerhard Kaufmann, Orgel und Nationalsozialismus: Die ideologische Vereinnahmung des Instrumentes im Dritten Reich, ’ Schriftenreihe der Walcker-Stiftung für Orgelwissenschaftliche Forschung, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht, no. 5 (Kleinblitters­ dorf: Musikwissenschaftliche Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH, 1997). Susanne Popp, ed., Der junge Reger: Briefe und Dokumente vor 1900, Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger-Instituts Karlsruhe, no. 15 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 2000). Antonius Bittmann, Negotiating Past and Present: Max Reger and Fin-de-siècle Mod­ ernisms (Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, 2000).

Chapter 1

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

Max Reger and Karl Straube first met in the spring of 1898 on the occasion of three organ recitals Straube gave in St. Paul’s Church/Frankfurt a.M., the second of which on 1 April featured portions of Reger’s Suite in E minor op. 16. We do not know how much Reger knew of Straube—his background, his technical talent, his ideas about performance, his sympathies toward old and new music—before he journeyed to Frankfurt from his home in Wiesbaden to hear Straube play. Hence, we cannot know if Reger’s only motivation for attending was the fact that his music was being performed publicly—cer­ tainly rare in 1898—or if his curiosity had been fed by the rising reputation of the performer. We can be sure, though, that the Reger-Straube relation­ ship arose from Straube’s initial interest in Reger’s music, an interest almost certainly acquired from the Berlin organist Heinrich Reimann (1850-1906) and stimulated by the young composer’s blend of tradition and innovation in a highly individual approach to counterpoint, harmony, and form. At the time of their meeting, Straube and Reger had learned to value the great musi­ cal past (which they both regarded as self-evidently German and primarily Bachian), and they thought about the relationship of past to present in similar ways. Straube allowed the possibilities of Wilhelm Sauer’s instruments to shape an original, orchestrally oriented approach to old organ music (i.e. by J. S. Bach and his predecessors) consciously removed from ‘historical per­ formance’ as we would think of it today. Reger manifested a similar philoso­ phy by composing music that was at once almost pedantically historical in form and brazenly modem in harmony. Such is the common ground upon which Reger and Straube built their relationship from 1898 onward. By contrast, the two men brought to their lifelong association very different backgrounds with respect to environment, education, and personality. Writers soon recognized this, and they began to describe a relationship built as much on contrast as on similarity. Notions of the Reger-Straube friendship settled into broadly drawn stereotypes on which many received assumptions are based. Aside from isolated efforts to explore the details of the relationship—Susanne Popp’s 1986 edition of the extant correspondence, for example—most writers have contented them9

10

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

selves with the kind of description offered already in 1907 by Gustav RobertTomow: The Bavarian [is] a potent genius, essentially related to his time only through music and the intimate experiences of youthful years filled with disappointment. The north German [is] a scholarly intelligence, capable of every type of objective and logical thought; he is comprehensively educated, primarily as an historian, but not only with respect to art. As well as an amateur could possibly be, he is also at home in the experiences of many peoples and times. Reger, at least in the works of his ‘Sturm und Drang’ period, is the impressionist, perhaps not lacking the tendency to preserve what he improvises and therefore often criticized. Straube, who sees immediately the wealth of possibilities via experiment and reflection, is always struggling with his own self-criticism. Even with regard to accomplish­ ments of great integrity, he is ready at the drop of a hat to reject all his work in favor of a new idea that suddenly suggests itself to his restless mind... Straube is a modem historian in that he lives in the charm of details and shapes each detail with charm.1 Robert-Tomow’s comments give rise to a portrait of the two men no doubt accurate in many respects. His statements about Reger’s relationship to improvisation and Straube’s penchant for detail are remarkable for 1907. However, general observations like these invite certain inaccurate assump­ tions. From the contrast between an improvising Kraftgenie and a considered scholar does not necessarily follow, for example, that Reger was uncon­ cerned with detail or self-criticism. That Reger’s early years as a composer were difficult does not mean that Straube’s performance career developed in a smooth and untroubled way. And Straube’s willingness to abandon his interpretive ideas (likewise a remarkable observation for 1907), while more accurate with respect to certain repertories than others, never took the form of categorical and irrevocable self-rejection.2

Max Reger, the ‘potent genius’ Max Reger was the first child of Joseph and Philomena Reger, a devoutly Roman Catholic couple living in the village of Brand (Bavarian Oberpfalz). Reger’s father was a schoolteacher, and at Easter 1874 the family moved to the somewhat larger nearby town of Weiden, where Joseph took up a new position at the local Catholic preparatory school. After receiving rudi­ mentary music lessons from his parents, Max began piano and organ study with Adalbert Lindner (1860-1946) in 1884.3 Lindner, who had received instruction in music theory, geography, and German from Joseph Reger at the Weiden preparatory school,4 himself became a schoolteacher at Weiden

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

11

in 1879. At least partially through a common interest in music and music­ making, Lindner became a friend of the Reger family and was entrusted with Max’s fiirther practical training in music through 1889. In 1888, the fifteenyear-old Reger attended performances of Parsifal and Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg at Bayreuth, and he may have decided to pursue a musical career based at least in part on the strong impressions made by those works.5 In 1890, upon the recommendation of Lindner and against the wishes of his par­ ents, Reger took up compositional studies with Hugo Riemann (1849-1919) at the Sondershausen Conservatory, following Riemann shortly thereafter to his new post at the Freudenberg Conservatory in Wiesbaden. Riemann, whose own musical tastes and theoretical presuppositions led to a largely negative view of Liszt and Wagner, directed Reger towards intense study of the Viennese masters (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms), and he encouraged in his pupil a fluid contrapuntal ability based on both tonal and modal models. Aside from what must have been at the time an uncommonly detailed working knowledge of musical style,6 Reger gained from Riemann in the early 1890s a veneration of Johannes Brahms as the most significant figure for the future of tonal music and a preoccupation with the contra­ puntal techniques of canon, fugue, passacaglia, and variation. The first of these characteristics—an appreciation of Brahms—realized itself through the remarkable imitation of Brahmsian manner in Reger’s first published works. Reger’s unqualified positive stance toward Brahms would diminish over the years, particularly with regard to Brahms’ orchestration techniques. By contrast, Reger’s interest in thoroughgoing counterpoint would never ebb, although he would sacrifice linearity to a remarkably free harmonic lan­ guage. Riemann accepted a position at the University of Leipzig in 1895, and he was able to secure Reger as his replacement for theory instruction in Wiesbaden. The relationship between the two men gradually declined upon Riemann’s departure, as did Reger’s state of mind generally.7 His remaining years in Wiesbaden would be plagued with depression, alchoholism, finan­ cial difficulties, and the failure to gain any wide positive recognition as a composer. His meeting with Straube in the spring of 1898 came just before the mental collapse that necessitated his return to his family home in Weiden.8 When Reger did gain some attention—if not success—for his compo­ sitions, it was primarily through the efforts of the organist Straube, and Reger’s production of organ music increased dramatically after the two men met in 1898. In part because Reger rose to prominence as an organ composer, and in part because he and Straube actively promoted an image of Reger as the rightful successor to Bach, Reger’s ability to write complicated organ music nourished the assumption that he could play the organ in an equally masterful way. This notion of Reger as an accomplished organist—able to play, say, his own large works or those of Bach—has proven remarkably

12

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

durable. Already in 1901, Heinrich Lang voiced the assumption that anyone who can compose such difficult music for the organ must be able to play it: I do not know whether Herr Reger himself is an organist of note, but I would tend to assume so, because his compositions offer the performing artist seemingly unsurpassable difficulties.9 Nicolas Slonimsky referred to him as late as 1994 as a ‘formidably industri­ ous and prolific German composer and master organist.’10 Reger must have demonstrated some practical ability on the instrument; otherwise it is diffi­ cult to understand why he would have received appointments to teach organ at the Wiesbaden Conservatory in 1891 (where he was concurrently a student in piano and theory) and at the Munich Academy in 1905.“ On the other hand, we know nothing about his duties in Wiesbaden and only little about them in Munich, but it must say something significant about German conser­ vatory music education if a person of quite limited practical ability and no performance record could be appointed to a teaching position, particularly to a prominent one once occupied by Josef Rheinberger. In the end, though, it is perhaps no less or more reasonable to expect that Reger, on the basis of these appointments, was an accomplished organist than it is to expect that J. S. Bach would have been capable of competently translating Scotus or Quintil­ ian because he taught Latin grammar to schoolboys at Leipzig. The assumption that Reger was an able organist grew concurrently with another, related tendency to grant him authority in matters of performance practice, especially regarding Bach. In 1910, Walter Fischer appeared before a conference of Westphalian organists, admonishing them to regard regis­ tration and rubato indications in certain works of Reger as ‘a hint for the performance of similar organ pieces by Bach,’12 and a reviewer of Arthur Nikisch’s 1907 production of the St. Matthew Passion BWV 244 at St. Thomas/Leipzig complained of the organ continuo with the aside ‘NB: For the working out and publication of such artful and stylistically faithful organ parts, Max Reger would have been the right man.’13 O f course, this idea proved relatively short-lived in the face of a rising movement toward authen­ ticity. It does, however, serve to highlight the need for a thorough examina­ tion of Reger’s education regarding the organ and its repertory. In the summer of 1885, Reger’s father salvaged parts of the Weiden pre­ paratory school’s practice organ, to which Lindner laconically referred as ‘no longer sufficiently fulfilling its purpose,’14 in order to build a small house instrument. Reger helped his father in what must have been at best a dilet­ tante effort, and Lindner’s exaggerated assertion that with this ‘the founda­ tion was laid for a comprehensive knowledge of organ building which would later serve him well in his own magnificent creations for Cecilia’s noble instrument’15 should not be taken too seriously. Upon Reger’s entry into the

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

13

preparatory school in the autumn of 1886, he was able to practice on the single-manual Steinmeyer organ which had replaced the instrument disas­ sembled the previous summer, and shortly thereafter, he took up part-time duties as organist in Lindner’s Catholic Stadtpfarrkirche, ‘at first [playing] various masses and finally the entire Catholic organ liturgy at high mass and at Vespers.’16 From 1886 through 1888, Reger played masses on Sun­ days and feast days, as well as regular Vesper liturgies. Such activity would have given him considerable opportunity to improvise, and, although Lind­ ner credited him with having advanced ‘to the BACH fugues of Schumann [op. 60] and pieces by Bach, Mendelssohn, and Liszt,’17 he seems in fact to have relied heavily upon his ability to extemporize (probably freely, but pos­ sibly upon updated versions of Gregorian melodies), especially on high feast days. When, on high feast days, he allowed his inexhaustible fantasy free reign on the full organ at the beginning and end of the service, one could hear chords and chord progressions of such unprecedented daring that one would likely have searched in vain for them in the harmony books in use at the time.—This harmonic severity reached its zenith, however, after my organist had deeply immersed himself in the tonal world of Richard Wagner. His improvisations became more and more chromatic, dissonance-laden, and often so thick and filli of notes, that my poor old bellows pumper could no longer supply the necessary quantity of wind, despite the greatest exertion via the four large, in part already defective, feeder bellows. The pumper sometimes showed a not unreasonable desire to abandon the whole affair in the middle of this cruel labor of Sisyphus.1* Lindner describes here a keyboard style virtually identical in its harmonic language and its approach to texture (significantly, he does not mention counterpoint) with that Straube confronted in the Suite in E minor op. 16, composed about ten years later. Reger began to teach himself coun­ terpoint during this period, and study with Hugo Riemann would allow him to develop a fluid contrapuntal ability in the 1890s. But it was undoubt­ edly the improvisational, experimental language described here—ultimately concerned more with harmonic and sonorous effect than with polyphonic devices—that supplied the initial parameters for Reger’s style. The period from 1886 through 1888 constituted Reger’s only extended practical contact with the instrument, and Lindner is probably right in claim­ ing that it was ‘of immense fundamental significance’19 for his organ works. Reger continued to study organ with Riemann in Sondershausen, and when both teacher and pupil moved to Wiesbaden in the autumn of 1890, he began to teach, probably using only the pedal piano owned by the Conservatory. We do not know what repertory Reger had played by this time, but it is impos­ sible to take seriously his spectacular claim to Theodor Kroyer in 1902 that

14

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

already by the early 1880s he had played ‘the complete organ works of Bach and Mendelssohn.’20 More important than his active repertory (insofar as one can speak of such a thing in Reger’s case) or the nature of his technical ability is the fact that the majority if not all of the instruments with which Reger had contact in the 1880s and 1890s were mechanical action organs with comparatively limited possibilities as to orchestral crescendi and the like. The new Steinmeyer instrument at the Weiden preparatory school, the Steinmeyer organ in the Erbendorf Simultankirche which Reger played on occasional visits to his uncle, and the Walcker organ of the Wiesbaden Marktkirche—with which he may have had limited contact in the 1890s21— had mechanical cone chests, whereas Lindner described the organ of the Stadtpfarrkirche in Weiden where Reger served during the late 1880s as having ‘a hard action and long stop knobs that were difficult to draw,’22prob­ ably a reference to slider chests. Lindner stated that the instrument was built in the eighteenth century ‘by a master from “lower Germany”,’23and he gave the following disposition:

Table 1.1

Weiden (Oberpfalz): Stadtpfarrkirche (Simultankirche, Michaeliskirche)

Hauptwerk Left: Pedalkoppel Gedackt Hohlflöte Quint Gamba Prinzipal

4’ 8’ 5 1/3’ 8’ 8’

Right: Subbaß Octavbaß Mixtur IV Gedackt Octav Octav

4’ 8’

Right: Salizional 8’ Geigenprinzipal 4’

16’ 8’ 2’ 8’ 2’ 4’

Oberwerk Left: Gedackt Flöte travers

Lindner added: A manual coupler does not exist in this disposition. The coupling of Hauptand Oberwerk had to be accomplished by sliding the keyboard of the latter,

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

15

an impractical, clumsy, easily fallible affair often hardly realizable during performance.24 Based on evidence at the central diocesan archive in Regensburg, Rudolf Walter has shown that the instrument in fact originated in 1564/1565 and underwent two renovations—the first in 1791/1792 by Andreas Bock (Trauschendorf bei Weiden) and the second in the nineteenth century by Ludwig Weineck (Bayreuth)— during which the disposition was altered.25 With the exception of its sixteenth-century casework, the organ was completely replaced in 1902/1903 when Weiden’s Protestant parish took exclusive possession of the building. Reger’s experience, in terms of both performance and instruments, contrasts greatly with that of Straube in Berlin during the same period. Probably more so than Straube, who spent a great deal o f time with the new pneumatic devices, Reger would have been in a position to observe the relationship between touch and mechanical actions, a principle ‘rediscovered’ in Hamburg by Günther Ramin, Hans Henny Jahnn, and others some thirty years later. However, insufficient evidence—from Reger’s or Lindner’s statements, and from the scores themselves—makes dangerous any extended speculation about the influence of these organs upon Reger’s compositional style. At least as pertinent would be, for example, Hugo Riemann’s discussion of organ action and registration in his 1888 Katechismus der Orgel, published only two years before Reger took up study with him.26 And although Straube’s statement in 1946 that Reger was ‘influenced by the sound of old organs’27 in his works through op. 30 (i.e. through 1898, includ­ ing the works produced that year after the two men met in April) is not easily dismissed, Reger surely would have been interested in the possibilities of Sauer’s instruments as they were presumably described to him by Straube.

Karl Straube, the ‘scholarly intelligence’ Whereas Reger matured against the background of a Bavarian Catholic pro­ vincialism, Karl Straube was raised and educated wholly in Berlin, the cos­ mopolitan capital of Bismarck’s united German empire. Günter Hartmann has rightly called attention to the fact that Straube’s early biographical data are inexact or lacking altogether.2* A thoroughgoing biography of Straube— which Hartmann’s controversial work does not purport to be— in fact does not yet exist, and of the small body of literature which does address Straube’s formative years, much of it seems to have been propagated as if by rote from a single early source: the Straube pupil and colleague Johannes Wolgast’s Karl Straube: eine Würdigung seiner Musikerpersönlichkeit anlässlich seiner 25jährigen Tätigkeit in Leipzig.29 Like Reger’s parents,

16

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Straube’s mother and father were also musicians, probably of somewhat higher technical accomplishment. Johannes Straube issued from a family o f Lutheran clergymen and received training from the Institut fur Kirchenmusik in Berlin. He was an instrument maker specializing in harmonium building and the organist of Berlin’s Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche, the church at which Karl would make his first public appearance as an organist. His mother, Sarah Palmer Straube, was the daughter of a well-to-do English family and piano pupil of Julius Benedict in London. According to Wolgast, she ‘spoke flu­ ently German, French, and Italian, [and] she read the Bible in the original Greek and Hebrew.’30 She passed on to her son an interest in literature, and, unlike the Reger household, both parents were apparently supportive of Straube’s career choice of music. Furthermore, Straube’s close proximity to important political happenings, together with the considerable intellectual stimulation afforded him at home, would form the foundation for his wider interests in politics, philosophy, and history. It seems likely that Straube’s general exposure to fields of historical inquiry contributed to his preoccupa­ tion with early music by the mid-1890s at the latest, well before his meet­ ing with Reger. Whereas Reger stubbornly and single-mindedly pursued success as a composer, Straube’s humanistic inclinations made him some­ what ambivalent about a musical career.31 In any case, he never pursued an advanced formal education, either through a university or at any of the con­ servatories which were gaining popularity in Germany at the time.32 He, like Reger, received his first music lessons from his parents, subsequently studying the organ with the Berlin organists Otto Dienel and Heinrich Reimann. Wolgast also mentions ‘theoretical and compositional work’33 with Philipp Rüfer and Albert Becker, as well as technical studies on the piano with Leipholz (?) during the years 1895-1897. With varying degrees of fre­ quency, most of these names have been repeated in the sources through the present day, Heinrich Reimann being the only one mentioned by Straube himself.34 The paucity of biographical data about Straube’s early years is the con­ sequence of a tendency among the sources to show Straube less a product of his education than of his own genius and industry. The image of a selfmade artist, with its attendant notions of natural ability and unremitting hard work, is not very different from that which Reger propagated for himself, but in Straube’s case the result has virtually precluded any examination of his background. Furthermore, efforts to present Straube and his activities in the best possible light, some of them originating with Straube himself, have given rise to errors and misunderstandings about his life.35 The Straube pupil Johannes Piersig rightly noted in 1978 that ‘[i]f one considers the fact that the intellectually and musically universal Karl Straube was a ‘self-made man’ in the formal sense of the w o rd ,... one has the underlying motive for his historical evaluation.’34 Piersig’s critical voice has been the exception,

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

17

though, and Wolgast’s assertion that Straube ‘is as an organist basically selftaught’ is echoed in subsequent writings.37 Straube undertook his first formal organ study with Otto Dienel (1839-1905), organist of Berlin’s Marienkirche and Music Director to the Kaiser, sometime before 1888. Mention of Dienel is absent from Straube’s own ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,’ but Wolgast states that Straube studied ‘a few things of Joh. Christ. Heinr. Rinck, as well as easier works of Bach.’38 Wolgast, who in any case could not have known Dienel, probably reproduced Straube’s opinion in characterizing him as ‘one of the most popular and, for his time, progressive organists in Berlin.’39 Dienel was himself a product of Berlin’s education system, having studied—like Straube’s father—at the Royal Institute of Church Music. His position in one of Berlin’s most impor­ tant churches and his appointment under Kaiser Wilhelm II must have made study with him a matter of considerable prestige. The ‘old Wagner organ’ of the Marienkirche, on which Wolgast reports Straube to have received his lessons,40 was the work of Joachim Wagner (1690-1749), designed and built between 1719 and 1723. In 1800 the instrument became subject to one of Abt Vogler’s simplification experiments, but it was restored in 1829 to its original condition:41

Table 1.2

Berlin: Marienkirche Joachim Wagner 1719-1723

Hauptwerk (C. D •■c3)

Hinterwerk (C, D - c3)

Principal Cornet V (cl - c3) Bordun Viole di Gamba Rohrflöt Octav Spitzflöt Quinta Octav Scharf V Cimbel III Trompet

Gedackt Quintadena Octav Rohrflöt Octav Waldflöt Quinta Cimbel III EchoV

8’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’ 1 1/2’ 1’ 8’

8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 2’ 2’ 1 1/2’ 1’

Oberwerk (C. D - c3)

Pedal ( C , D - d l )

Principal Quintadena

Principal-Baß Violon

8’ 16’

16’ 16’

18

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Gedackt Octav Fugara Nassat Octav Tertie “aus 2 fuß” Siefflöt Mixtur IV Vox humana

8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’

Gembßhom Quinta Octav Mixtur VI Posaune Trompet

8’ 6’ 4’ 2’ 16’ 8’

1’ 1 1/2’ 8’

Manual couplers 2 tremulants Zimbelstem Slider chests Ventils for each chest The classical instrument of the Marienkirche— with rich choruses in each division, the relative abundance of mutation stops, and the absence of regis­ tration aids (Was there a pedal coupler?)— certainly did not correspond to Dienel’s own ideas about organ design. In 1889, he produced a pamphlet under the title Die Stellung der modernen Orgel zu Seb. Bach ’s Orgelmusik, expanded in the following year into a full-scale apologia on the merits of the ‘modem’ organ. Dienel compared traditional and modem building prac­ tices, called for the establishment of new performance techniques matched to the possibilities of the modem instrument, and attempted to demonstrate the advantages of the new organs in sacred as well as secular settings: With this publication I aim to clarify the particulars by which the action and specification of the modem organ is differentiated from that of the old organ, the influences which caused these alterations, and how the modified tone color and enhanced versatility ofthe modem organmakes p o s s i b l e and r e q u i r e s a m o d i f i e d t r e a t m e n t . [f| I must firmly deny the contention that the tech­ nical reforms I propose [i.e. as regards performance] could distort or even profane the purposes of the organ, insofar as these are ecclesiastical, i n any way. . . [1(] Finally, it is incumbent upon me to consider the modem organ as a solo instru­ ment and to discuss thoroughly the performance of pieces composed for the old oigan, especially those of Bach.42 Dienel’s treatise contains much useful information about current perfor­ mance norms in different areas of Germany, especially as regards Bach’s music. He advocated a flexible, orchestral treatment of organ sound based on the subtle gradations of color offered by the new instruments. Dienel argued that advances in organ building, focused on tone color and ease of playing,

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

19

do not preclude clarity in polyphonic textures so long as the player adopts a modified—and necessarily more elaborate— approach in performance. Like Hans von Biilow’s treatment of Beethoven’s orchestral music, the organist’s approach to Bach (and, by implication, to any other composer) must be both objectively and subjectively informed. Unlike Bach and those of his time, the modem organist could now enlist the services of sound itself in the com­ munication of meaning: the possibilities of smooth, grand crescendi and the lifting out of important motives in complicated textures offered, according to Dienel, enormous potential for the clarity of Bach’s musical architecture.43 Given his wholesale endorsement of the ‘modem’ organ, it is not unreason­ able to doubt the efficacy of Dienel’s approach to the classical instrument at St. Mary’s, and one is curious to know the nature of Straube’s lessons there, especially since Dienel’s main premise in fact already contains everything on which Straube based his early treatment of Bach. This would not differ in any essential way from Straube’s approach to Reger in 1897 and beyond. Again, Dienel in 1890: The suitable Bach player will be the one who allows his subjectivity to fuse with Bach’s own and uses modem means only for a clear exposition of Bach’s ideas in a sympathetic, ideal way implied by the composer himself. Such a person will also be able to choose the right thing from the means offered by the techniques of modem organ building. These means will in fact enable him to become the right, comprehensible Bach interpreter for our time.44 Dienel’s statements bear striking similarity to Straube’s own in the preface to his Alte Meister des Orgelspiels (Old Masters o f Organ Playing, 1904), one of Straube’s earliest editorial efforts: It is the goal of this publication to stimulate interest, particularly among those directly involved [i.e. organists], in a more thorough occupation than hitherto with the great art of the forever young old masters. That the achievement of such a goal is not possible without a rather strong element of subjective feeling is known to everyone who has attempted similar projects. ‘As I see it’: to this bears witness every one of the fourteen arrangements brought together on the following pages ... As a child of the times, I have not hesitated to employ all the expressive means of the modem organ to make possible a musical rendering corresponding to ‘the Affekts.’45 It is not clear how long Straube studied with Dienel or why he began study with Heinrich Reimann in 1888, but it seems likely that Reimann’s own wider intellectual interests attracted Straube. Reimann had earned a uni­ versity degree in classical philology at Breslau in 1875, having studied organ simultaneously with the Silesian composer and organist Moritz Brosig

20

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

(1815-1887). He changed his profession to music only in 1886 and became active in Berlin as an organist, choral conductor, and writer on subjects from Byzantine music through Wagner and contemporary composition. It is not known where Straube took his lessons from Reimann in the late 1880s and early 1890s, since Reimann did not hold a church position in Berlin until 1895. Perhaps he received instruction on the Schlag und Söhne instrument (1888) of the Berlin Philharmonie, since Reimann was closely associated with the orchestra during that period. Furthermore, since the Heilig-KreuzKirche was both the church which employed Straube’s father and the site of Straube’s first public performances, it is likely he worked extensively on the organ there. Wolgast qualified his remarks about Straube’s period of study with Reimann: However, the small number of works that he played under Reimann sheds light on just how little even Reimann comes into question as Straube’s direct teacher: 1. Johann Sebastian Bach, Fugue in C minor (Collected Works XXXVIII, p. 94). [Legrenzi, BWV 574] 2. Johann Sebastian Bach, Dorian Toccata (without fugue). [BWV 538] 3. Johann Sebastian Bach, Prelude and Fugue in D major (Coll. Wks. XV, p. 88). [BWV 532] 4. Johann Sebastian Bach, Prelude and Fugue in A minor (Coll. Wks. XV, p. 189). [BWV 543] 5. Johann Sebastian Bach, Prelude and Fugue in G major (Coll. Wks. XV, p. 169). [BWV 541] 6. Josef Rheinberger, Sonata Nr. 15. [in D major, op. 168] 7. Philipp Rtifer, Sonata Nr. 16. [in G minor? Cf. Appendix 5,2 March 1894] 8. Felix Alexander Guilmant, Sonata Nr. 5. [in C minor, op. 80] 9. Gottlieb Muffat, Passacaglia. 10. Johann Pachelbel, Chaconne in D minor.

Besides these works he looked over Liszt’s Fantasy and Fugue on BACH with Reimann.46 Appendix 5 supplements this repertory list from 1893 forward. From 1895, Straube began to include early music in his programs with good success in the press. According to Wolgast, Straube’s interest in old music arose in the 1890s ‘through his association with Heinrich Reimann, but also through Spitta’s Bach biography.’47 Unlike his later editions of old music, and unlike his 1921 inaugural recital on Gurlitt’s ‘Praetorius’ organ at Freiburg Univer­ sity, Straube’s early programs represent English, French, and Italian com­ position alongside German alte Meister. He continued this practice through

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

21

the first years of the new century (e.g. Munich, 27 February 1899; Leipzig, 6 November 1903), but by the time Straube began to take on pupils of his own, his performances of older music appear to have attenuated in favor of a working repertory more decidedly weighted toward German composers. Although Wolgast placed Straube’s first recital in 1894, he in fact first performed in public on 3 March 1893. Max Seiffert, the Berlin musicologist to whom Straube later would dedicate his 1907 collection Choralvorspiele alter Meister, submitted a revealing, somewhat negative review: On the third of this month in the Church of the Holy Cross a concert occurred in which took part, besides Herr Waldemar Meyer and the a cappella choir of Herr H. Putsch, a young organist: Herr Karl Straube. From him I heard Rheinberger’s D-major Sonata [op. 168] and Liszt’s Ave Maria and Trauerode. One could soon hear that Herr Straube has pursued sound study under wise leadership. Neverthe­ less, he does not yet possess unqualified confidence in the technical treatment of the complicated instrument. In the first place I missed, as soon as the full organ came into play, rhythmic exactitude in his playing, which is the most important requirement in dealing with such colossal masses of sound. That manual changes did not always proceed smoothly is perhaps due to his inexperience with nerves. But I recommend strongly to Herr Straube a wiser moderation in the use of the Rollschweller. Just as he sometimes employed it to beautiful effect, at other times its rushed and exaggerated use was quite disturbing: the polyphonic web would lie transparent before us, and then thundering waves of sound would suddenly pour over it, violently drawing the previously beautiful musical picture into the maelstrom of the unintelligible. Truly artistic restraint must also be learned. One may advise Herr Straube not yet to consider himself all too accomplished in this regard.4* Seiffert’s charge concerning excessive rhythmic freedom would resurface in later years: it was a quality of Straube’s playing which would have been a logical byproduct of his preoccupation with polyphonic phrasing. The reason for its mention here in particular regard to the full organ is unclear, but it might be attributable simply to insufficient technical command. From Seif­ fert’s comments, too, we know that the organ of the Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche was ‘modem’ enough to possess a Rollschweller of some type, and that Straube—certainly with the sanction of his teachers Dienel and Reimann— was experimenting with it, at least in the relatively contemporary music of Rheinberger and Liszt.49 Straube’s name appeared again in Berlin’s Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung almost one year later, on 2 March 1894. Seiffert’s comments are at once more positive and less detailed. In his eyes, the novice ‘organ player’ (Orgel­ spieler) of 1893 has become the ‘young organ virtuoso’ (junge[r] Orgelvirtuos) of 1894:

22

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

I can report with pleasure on the church concert that Herr Karl Straube offered on 20 February in the Church of the Holy Cross. The young organ virtuoso has lately improved extraordinarily. Besides the purely technical certainty on the manuals and pedal already noted earlier [?], a confident, refined affinity for the intima­ cies of organ performance came to light in this case. Bach’s G-major Fugue [?], Rüfer’s G-minor Sonata, and Liszt’s ‘Ave Maria’ (the end of which unfortunately was almost inaudible) and BACH Fantasy increasingly indicated how well con­ sidered and aware of his artistic purpose was Herr Straube in the use of the organ’s expressive means for the interpretation of those works.50 If Straube had mastered the ‘expressive means’ of the organ by 1894 (which Seiffert and others no doubt largely equated with the subtleties of registra­ tion), he would have had ample opportunity to explore them further in 1895, by which time Reimann had secured the position of organist at Berlin’s new Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche. The church had commissioned Wil­ helm Sauer’s largest instrument to date, and, while the degree to which Rei­ mann took part in the planning remains unclear, the new organ certainly corresponded to his own progressive ideas about organ design. Straube, who according to Wolgast quickly became Reimann’s assistant at the church, would have had opportunity to perform frequently in the regular Thursday recitals there.51 Reimann described the organ in an 1895 essay:52

Table 1.3

Berlin: Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche Wilhelm Sauer 1895 (Opus 660)

Hauptmanual (C - g3) Principal (façade) Bordun Principal (façade) Geigenprincipal Gedakt Doppelflöte Flûte harmonique Quintatön Gemshom Viola di Gamba Rohrflöte Spitzflöte Fugara Octave Piccolo

Manual III (Schwellwerk, C - g3) 16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 2’

Quintatön Lieblich Gedakt Principal Gedakt Konzertflöte Quintatön Aeoline Voix céleste Schalmei Traversflöte Quintatön Praestant Viola Nasard Flautino

16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 2 2/3’ 2’

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

Rausch-Quinte Cornett III-IV Mixtur III Scharf V Bombarde Trompete Clarino

2 2/3’ + 2’ Harm, aetherea III Cornett III Vox humana Oboe 16’ Trompette harm. 8’ 4’

Manual I I ÍC - g3f Principal (façade) Gedakt Principal (façade) Lieblich Gedakt Dolce Rohrflöte Traversflöte Spitzflöte Salicional Flauto dolce Octav-Flöte Gemshom Octave Zartflöte Quinte Octave Cornett III Mixtur IV Cor anglais Tuba

23

8’ 8’ 8’

Pedal (C - fl) 16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 2’ 2 2/3’ 2’

Untersatz Lieblich Gedakt Subbaß Baßflöte Salicet-Baß Dulciana Violon Violoncello Principal-Baß Principal-Baß Octave Quintbaß Gedaktquinte Terz Fagott Posaune Trompete Clarino

32’ 16’ 16’ 8’ 16’ 8’ 16’ 8’ 16’ 8’ 4’ 10 2/3’ 5 1/3’ 3 1/5’ 16’ 16’ 8’ 4’

8’ 8’

All normal couplers Collective foot lever for all couplers Foot lever for tutti 6 free combinations Rollschweller Swell shoe for Manual III (mechanical?) Concerning the free combinations, Reimann added that [a] device—as simple as it is sensible—allows for the alteration, intensification, or reduction of each engaged combination during performance, i.e. during the use

24

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

of that combination. The couplers, too, may be engaged in or retired from the combinations during performance.53 Furthermore, the instrument ‘possesses t u b u l a r p n e u m a t i c a c t i o n according to a time-proven, exceptionally reliable, and unsurpassably pre­ cise system invented by the builder.’54 Already by 1897, the instrument had acquired a fourth manual controlling a ten-stop echo division placed atop the existing casework. Reimann discussed the additions in an essay from the same year.55 The placement of the whole organ in a recessed, cupolated area over the nave allowed for a soundproof duct leading from the new echo case through a stone wall to a screened opening directly above the main part of the church. Both ends of the duct, Reimann explained, were outfitted with swell shutters: the shades directly in front of the new division were controlled by a mechanical shoe, those on the far end above the nave by a pneumatic por­ celain tab over the fourth manual. He cited the specification of this elaborate addendum:

Table 1.4

Berlin: Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche Wilhelm Sauer 1897 (additions to Opus 660)

Manual IV (C - g3, Echowerk) Quintatön Principal Spitzflöte Bourdon Vox humana Gamba Voix céleste Spitzflöte Octave Trompete

16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 8’

(displaced from Manual III)

(displaced from Manual III)

Tremulant for Vox humana 2 swell devices for entire division Tutti tab for Manual IV The swell division stops Quintatön 16’ and Vox humana 8’, now removed to Manual IV, were replaced with ‘a very beautifully successful Physharmonica 16’ (on the model of the one in Freiburg) and a powerful 8’ Flöte’ respectively.56 In addition, Manual I’s Spitzflöte 4’ was exchanged for a new Konzertflöte 4’. Furthermore, Reimann seems to have believed he was doing

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

25

something historically accurate when he reported that Sauer ‘will install a Glockenspiel (Pedal, in 4 ’ range) of the type foreseen by Bach in the Arn­ stadt [recte: Mühlhausen] organ.’57 The new division was pneumatically controlled, and its stops were strongly voiced ‘under the greatest possible wind pressure.’5* The tone of Reimann’s essay leaves no doubt that he was extremely pleased with the product, not least because of its size and the ‘no longer surpassable number and beauty of its tonal effects.’59 The instal­ lation of six free combinations was at the time unique among Sauer’s instru­ ments (there was normally a maximum of three, even in his largest organs),60 undoubtedly due to Reimann’s belief that large organs needed a proportion­ ally greater number of registration aids. He had voiced this opinion in his 1891 essay for the Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung ‘Noch einmal über den Vortrag der Orgelkompositionen Johann Sebastian Bachs’: The more numerous the ranks of an organ, the more impractical the instrument becomes w i t h o u t combination pistons. A monstrosity of unwieldiness in this regard, it appears to me, is the much praised organ in the new Ulm Cathedral [Walcker], which with its 101 ranks has barely 3 or 4 combination pistons. On the other hand, a unicum of technical perfection is the new organ in C h i c a g o [undoubtedly the Roosevelt instrument in the city’s concert hall] which was played publicly for the first time on 12 October last year (Herr [Clar­ ence] E d d y, a pupil of our old master [Carl August] H a u p t).61 By the time Reimann’s essay had been republished in a collection of his works in 1900, he had changed the last sentence to read A unicum of technical perfection, with its great simplicity and clarity, is the organ in the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin with its 91 ranks (including Glockenspiel) and an echo division of astounding, perfect beauty.62 Straube was intimately acquainted with Reimann’s instrument in Berlin both before and after its expansion, but he would have had greater opportunity to experiment with it in its original three-manual format:63 the renovated organ was dedicated on 21 and 22 March 1897, and Straube was elected on 13 May as the new organist of Wesel Cathedral. Despite Wolgast’s assertion that Reimann was only marginally a ‘direct teacher’ of Straube, it is clear from Straube’s own ‘Rückblick und Beken­ ntnis’ that he considered Reimann the starting point for his own practices. At the end of his life, Straube reflected on the significance of Reimann’s pres­ ence in late nineteenth-century Berlin, nevertheless attempting to show the originality of his own approach (in this case, to Bach’s music). It is the most extended discussion Straube offers in print about organ performance:

26

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

When, with my teacher Heinrich Reimann and through intense private study, I acquired my organ technique in order to develop Bach’s organ music anew for my time—i.e. the last decade before the turn of the century—the music of Wagner and Liszt was the dominant artistic reality of the up-to-date musician and music lover ... In an era of an unlimited egocentricity, this appraisal granted Wagner’s orchestral music a position of supremacy in musical composition which was not seriously contested by any other composer... The magic of Wagnerian orchestral sound was so extensive that one was inclined to measure the greatness of earlier masters on the strength of their echo in Wagner’s music. One discovered various Wagner similarities in pre-Wagnerian music and heard even more into it. [K] If the old custom of playing Bach’s organ works in a thick soup of sound was to be at all liberated from the bonds of a schoolmaster-like conservativism, and if the reputation of being old and outmoded was to be removed from Bach’s music, this was only possible by a performance style which reproduced Bach with the sen­ suality of Wagnerian sound ... [K] I therefore considered it my task as an organ­ ist, employing all the tonal possibilities of the modem organ, to make audible the daring of Bach’s music, the personal expression which superseded all tradi­ tions and conventions of musical language. Two artistic ideas, which I took from my formative years in Berlin to my organist position at the Willibrordi Church in Wesel, were of decisive influence. [%\ The first originated with the impulsive manner in which Heinrich Reimann did away with the usual routine of Bach play­ ing in Berlin, i.e. in a uniform fortissimo. Reimann came from the school of the Breslau Cathedral Kapellmeister Moritz Brosig, who was decidedly opposed to this stiff Berlin Bach style. Reimann continued the fight against this sound ped­ antry as a smart and vivacious artistic personality. An adherent of Wagner and Liszt, he recognized how the musical public, itself under Wagner’s spell, was alienated from the ‘queen of instruments.’ He was able to rescue the organ’s honor not only by his interpretation of contemporary organ music of a Liszt and Julius Reubke, whose dynamic requirements he fulfilled through a differentiated sound of orchestral color. He also awoke the Berlin Bach style out of its ossifi­ cation by his crescendo technique. Reimann usually began a Bach fugue on the organ in a mezzo forte, which he then built to the full organ at the end by way of occasional episodes on the second and third manuals. The effect of this long crescendo was intensified by a constant accelerando. Usually the closing tempo was twice as fast as the beginning ... [10 The second step to the rehabilitation of the organ as a Bach instrument lay in turning Reimann’s art of differentiation, which he used only in terms of volume, also to the sound character, using the color of individual stops and certain stop groups to support the mood. I took this step with complete awareness that, with it, I was striving for something other than what Reimann intended. Reimann was probably searching in the first place for the great sound pathos in Bach which would restore to the organ its lost royal dignity. I strove to allow the subjective origin of the music to sound alongside the

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

27

objective tonal language of Bach’s polyphony. With Bach, this never destroys the form, rather only protects it in its clarity from an unyielding schematicism.64 From his association with the instruments and organists of Berlin, Straube developed a colorful, varied registration practice matched to the capabilities of Sauer’s instruments, and by the first decade of the new century, he had come to regard Wilhelm Sauer as Germany’s greatest modem organ builder.65 Clearly, he believed that his own choices of stops—at least in Bach and at least on instruments built along the lines of Sauer’s orchestral aesthetic— were at once more detailed and more logical with regard to formal architec­ ture than were Reimann’s. The second ‘artistic idea’ to which Straube made reference issued from the violin playing of Josef Joachim. Joachim’s Bach playing, according to Straube, led to the realization that Bach’s music must be perceived as a series of simultaneous melodic lines, and from this Straube developed his extremely detailed approach to phrasing and articulation: I learned to sing Bach at the organ ... I approached every line in the polyphonic texture as a piece of musical life. There could no longer be any dead movement which merely filled and thickened the sound without individualizing it. Every counterpoint actually had to be heard as a counterpoint, as a speaking voice in the organ choir. It was my goal to expose, in the seemingly secondary or fortuitous motivic work, the organic relation to the whole.66 Concerning ideas about phrasing and the like, Straube was probably right to mention Joachim instead of Reimann. Reimann’s two extended essays on the performance of Bach are actually treatises on registration, and he made clear his belief that the success of any modem performance would be based ‘in the first place on the dynamic shading of a melody.’67 Straube went on to say that his phrasing principles, specifically in Bach’s organ music and especially in his editions from 1913 onward, were governed by the relationship between text and music he perceived in Bach’s vocal works. However, there can be little doubt that Straube’s way of phrasing—employed similarly in editions of Bach, Reger, and others— owed much to Hugo Riemann’s theories con­ cerning the primacy of upbeat (Auftakt) formations, even though Straube never mentions the connection.68 There is no available evidence to substan­ tiate any kind of relationship between Straube and Reger’s tutor Riemann, but it is difficult to imagine that it would not have existed, especially since Riemann was already lecturing at the University of Leipzig when Straube moved to that city in 1903. Considering Straube’s by then already mature friendship with Reger, who himself was intimately acquainted with Rie­ mann’s theories, it seems likely that Straube would have known of his work early on.69

28

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Reger, Straube, and the beginnings of collaboration Straube became aware of Reger’s music during his period of study with Heinrich Reimann. No doubt in part because of shared interests between Reimann and Hugo Riemann on musicological fronts, and because of Reimann’s influential position as a music critic for the Allgemeine MusikZeitung, Riemann had turned Reimann’s attention to Reger in the spring of 1893. Riemann sent his Berlin colleague a collection of Reger’s first pub­ lished compositions, to which Reimann responded with qualified enthusi­ asm. Very dear Dr., I have looked through the compositions of your pupil Max Reger with great interest. This is an extraordinarily intense musical nature which may cause headaches for some! There blows a youthfully fresh, powerful quality through all these things, and one may certainly expect that, after certain elements in him become defined and more objective, his most unique artistic personality will emerge in an even more exact and clear way than it already has.70 In July 1893, Reimann published a review of the young composer’s opp. 1-4 and op. 6, thus echoing these same sentiments in a public forum and painting a portrait of Reger as ‘a real musical hothead,... full of daring plans to con­ quer the world, until he encountered the theoretical school of Hugo Riemann and learned that “one, two, three” is necessary to composition.’71 Just as he had to Riemann privately, Reimann observed that Reger was by no means a mature composer. He was nevertheless very optimistic for Reger’s future, and he closed with the wish (now often quoted in Reger literature) ‘that the good expectations which this newly rising, great talent promises might be fulfilled!’72 Given Reimann’s anticipatory tone, Straube surely would have taken note of Reger’s first publications for the organ when they began to appear later that same year: the classicizing Three Pieces op. 7 were pub­ lished by Augener of London in the fall, and his chorale prelude without opus number O Traurigkeit, o Herzeleid appeared in 1894 in Berlin’s Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, the journal with which Reimann himself was closely associ­ ated.73 But according to Wolgast—and his account is, again, the one which has reappeared in all subsequent discussions— it was Reger’s extended Suite in E minor op. 16, composed early in 1895 and dedicated ‘to the manes of Johann Sebastian Bach,’74 which attracted Straube’s attention. The story seems almost andecdotal, designed to say at least as much about Straube’s talent and industry as about the supposed quality of Reger’s music: In the autumn of 1896, Reimann showed Straube Reger’s four-movement Suite in E minor op. 16 with the remark that the work was so difficult as to be completely unplayable. This assessment provoked Straube’s virtuosic ambition, so that he set

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

29

about mastering the work, which placed him before utterly new technical prob­ lems, with unflagging energy. Already by March 1897, he was the first to per­ form publicly Reger’s first large organ work. The concert took place in Trinity Church on an unfortunately insufficient organ ... For Straube’s life, this concert signified the beginning of his virtuosic mastery and simultaneously—certainly not by chance—the end of his Berlin years.75 As to the ‘utterly new technical problems’ to which Wolgast refers—thick, pianistic chords76 in alternation with strict counterpoint; a stubbornly chro­ matic language in fast harmonic rhythm; and the concentration requirements for a piece of about fifty minutes’ duration—all of this must in fact have been a significant imposition on a German organist in the 1890s, even on one trained by the most progressive players in Berlin. And Reimann, who had believed at least since 1891 that Bach’s Sonatas B WV 525-530 and Pas­ sacaglia BWV 582 were not intended for the organ,77 probably found unrea­ sonable Reger’s inclusion of a demanding 67-bar trio in the third movement and a passacaglia of 213 bars as a finale to op. 16. Straube performed Reger’s Suite for the first time on 3 March 1897. That he did so on an ‘unfortunately insufficient organ’78 rather than on Reimann’s magnificent Sauer instrument in the Kaiser Wilhelm Church must be due to the fact that the renovations to the latter (see above) were still underway at that date. We know little about the nature of his playing: Straube’s copy of the piece—which, unlike his performance materials for Reger’s large works from op. 27 through op. 52, took the form of a published score—has not surfaced. Straube is known to have performed portions of op. 16 again in his series of concerts at Frankfurt a.M. on 1 April 1898, at which point he met the composer, and he played the second and fourth movements in a recital of Reger’s works on 13 September at Wesel Cathedral, where he was by that time employed. At this point, the performance history of the piece appears to end. Whatever meaning the Suite may have had for Straube’s introduction to Reger’s style, it was apparently not enough for him to retain it in his active repertory, and Straube never mentioned the work in print. On 1 June 1897, shortly after his premiere performance of Reger’s op. 16, Straube took up his first full-time church position as organist of St. Wil­ librord Cathedral in Wesel (Rhein). The organ, on which Straube would play the first performances of Reger’s opp. 27, 29, 30, 40/1, 46, and 52/1— i.e., many of the large works from Reger’s so-called second Weiden period— was one of Sauer’s largest instruments to date, built in 1895 just before Berlin’s Kaiser Wilhelm organ.

30

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Table 1.5

Wesel am Rhein: Dom St. Willibrord Wilhelm Sauer 1895 (Opus 650) Manual III (C - ß . Schwellwerki

Manual I ÍC - ß l Principal Bordun Gamba Principal Hohlflöte Viola di Gamba Doppelflöte Gemshom Traversflöte Quintatön Geigenprincipal Gedackt Quinte Octave Spitzflöte Fugara Rohrflöte Rauschquinte II Groß-Cymbel Piccolo Mixtur V Scharf V Cornett III-V Trompete Trompete

16’ 16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 5 1/3 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 2 2/3’, 2’ 3 1/5’, 2 1/7’, 2’ 2’

16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 2 2/3’ 2’ 8’ 8’

16’ 8’

Manual II IC - ß i Geigenprincipal Bordun Principal Rohrflöte Salicional Flûte harmonique Spitzflöte Harmonika Gedackt Dolce

Salicional Lieblich Gedackt Principal Konzertflöte Schalmei Lieblich Gedackt Aeoline Voix céleste Dulciana Praestant Traversflöte Violine Gemshomquinte Flautino Harm, aetherea III Clarinette Vox humana

Pedal ( C - d l ) 16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’

Contrabaß Untersatz Principal Violon Subbaß Gemshom Baßflöte Quintbaß Oktavbaß Violoncello

32’ 32’ 16’ 16’ 16’ 16’ 16’ 10 2/3’ 8’ 8’

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

Octave Flöte Gemshom Flauto dolce Rauschquinte II Mixtur IV Cornett IV Fagott Tuba Oboë

4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 2 2/3’, 2 ’

16’ 8’ 8’

6 normal couplers 1 octave coupler Preset pistons mf, f, ff for each manual

Gedackt Viola d’amour Flöte Cornett III Contraposaune Posaune Trompete Clairon

31

8’ 8’ 4’ 32’ 16’ 8’ 4’

Preset piston for reeds Rollschweller Swell shoe for Manual III (mechanical?)

With respect to its stoplist, Sauer’s Wesel organ bore many similarities to Reimann’s instrument in Berlin, especially in the notable tendency to bal­ ance the weight of 16’ and 8’ stops with a relatively rich complement of mutations. In Wesel, Sauer had striven for a remarkably massive corpus of sound in the full organ, with four 16’ stops on the main division and three 32’ pedal registers. His Kaiser Wilhelm organ later that same year would have, by comparison, three 16’ stops on Manual I and only one 32’ stop in the pedal. Although by the mid- 1890s Sauer was beginning to adopt some of the progressive techniques so praised by Dienel and Reimann (e.g. pneumatic actions and registration aids), he did so in Wesel only in the most conserva­ tive way: the instrument’s swell division was entirely mechanical, wind was hand-pumped, and Sauer included no free combinations at all. The organist had recourse only to three pre-set, dynamically gradated pistons on each manual division, a reed ventil, and a crescendo device (Rollschweller).79Fur­ thermore, the manual compass extended only to f3, the pedal to d l. In 1906, Straube would complain about the ‘somewhat old-fashioned, narrow limita­ tion of the manual compass’80 on the Sauer instrument at St. Thomas/Leipzig (1888/1902, Op. 501), which until its renovation in 1908 had an identical range. It is important to realize that this would not have hampered him from playing Reger’s big pieces composed at the turn of the century, since Reger writes consistently for the middle range of the keyboard and only once ven­ tures above f3.81 The narrow pedal compass would have been a more notice­ able problem, as in the First Sonata op. 33, where a pedal el is essential to the climax of the first movement (m. 45). During his tenure at Wesel (1897-1902), Straube significantly expanded his performance activities. From July through November 1899, for instance, he gave no fewer than ten recitals in Wesel alone, and Wolgast rightly asserts

32

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Petforming Tradition

that Straube established his reputation as an organist largely during his resi­ dence in that city.82 Given the extent of Straube’s repertory through 1902—it included Buxtehude, Bach, Rheinberger, Liszt, Reubke, Widor, Guilmant, Saint-Saëns, a corpus of early music, and every major organ work of Reger from op. 27 through op. 5783—and the positive accounts of his playing in the major press sources of the period, it is difficult to accept Günter Hartmann’s suggestion that Straube lacked musical talent.84 On the contrary, he seems to have been enormously adept at learning music quickly and thoroughly. This may itself have been a byproduct of the fact—practically unimagina­ ble today—that Straube had to adapt his practice habits to the realities of a manually driven winding system during the very period he was learning Reger’s demanding new music. Karl Dreimüller has pointed out that the church authorities in Wesel granted Straube the unusually high sum of 240 gold marks per year, amounting to fully a tenth of his salary, to compensate the organ pumpers required for his practice time.85 Still, there can be no doubt that the inevitable limitations involved in the employment of a bellows pumper would heighten the efficiency of one’s practice habits, particularly with a repertory as ambitious as that of Straube. And, with the notable excep­ tion of Reimann’s electrically powered Kaiser Wilhelm organ, Straube’s experience with Berlin’s instruments during the 1880s and 1890s—say, the Joachim Wagner organ at St. Mary’s—would not have been much different. When in 1903 he finally came into regular, extended contact with an electri­ cally driven winding system at Leipzig, Straube’s practice routine probably adapted accordingly. In any case, statements like Karl Hasse’s that ‘Straube often sat all night at the St. Thomas organ in Leipzig, working o u t... tonal effects’86 would not have applied to his time in Wesel.

Notes 1.

‘Der Bayer [ist] ein Kraftgenie, das mit seiner Zeit nur wesentlich durch die Musik und durch die engeren Erfahrungen enttäuschungsreicher Jugendjahre zusammenhängt; der Norddeutsche eine wissenschaftliche Intelligenz, jeder Art sachlichen und prinzipiellen Denkens fähig, von umfassender Bildung, vornehmlich Historiker, jedoch nicht einzig Kunstgeschichtler, sondern zu Hause in allen Erlebnissen vieler Völker und Zeiten, soweit der Laie irgend es vermag. Reger, wenigstens in den Werken seines Sturms und Dranges, Impressionist, vielleicht nicht ohne Neigung, Improvisiertes unverändert fest­ zuhalten, und deshalb oft getadelt; Straube, dem Experiment und Reflexion jeweils die Fülle der Möglichkeiten zeigen, beständig im Kampfe mit der eignen Selbstkritik; sogar nach Leistungen von großer Vollendung auf dem Flecke bereit, alles Erarbeitete umzustoßen zugunsten eines neuen Gedankens, der sich seiner rastlosen Überlegung unversehens bietet...Straube ist auch darin moderner Historiker, daß er im Reize des

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

33

Details lebt und jedes Detail reizvoll gestaltet...* Robert-Tornow, Max Reger und Karl Straube, 24-25. Straube more readily applied the new ideas of Orgelbewegung theory to Bach than to Reger. Even so, he was still willing in 1950 to affirm ‘in large part’ [‘nicht zum geringen Teil’] the articulation instructions published in his 1913 Bach edition ‘insofar as they are completely derived from the formal structure and not dictated by antiquated Romantic notions’ [‘(s)ofem sie ganz aus der formalen Struktur abgeleitet und nicht von überlebten romantischen Vorstellungen diktiert sind ... ’]. Karl Straube, ‘Rückblick und Bekennt­ nis,* Musik und Kirche 20 (1950): 88. Reger received instruction in string playing and harmony from his father, himself an amateur contrabassist active in musical performances in Weiden. Reger’s mother was responsible for her son’s first keyboard lessons. The parents evidently regarded Max’s musical instruction as part of a larger humanistic education designed to prepare him for a career in school teaching. The rudimentary education in a variety of subjects Reger received at home before his sixth year was thorough enough to allow his direct entry into the second grade. Much of what is known about Reger’s elementary education— musical and otherwise—issues from Lindner’s monograph Max Reger: Ein Bild seines Jugendlebens und künstlerischen Werdens (Stuttgart: Engelhom, 1921). See especially Lindner’s Chapter 1, ‘Max Regers Jugendleben im Eltemhause,’ as well as the collec­ tion of relevant source materials in Susanne Popp, ed., Der junge Reger (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf, 2000). In the second edition of his book from 1923, Lindner reported that Joseph Reger ‘taught piano, organ, violin and harmony, as well as the German language and the sciences’ [‘ ... Unterricht in Klavier, Orgel, Violine und Harmonielehre, wie auch in der deutschen Sprache und den Realien erteilte ... ’] at the school. Ibid., 2nd ed., 40-41. Subsequent references to Lindner’s work are based on the second edition. In an appendix, Lindner published a recollection of the Stuttgart violinist Carl Wendling in which Reger, having been asked his opinion of Wagner, replied, ‘When I heard Parsi­ fal for the first time in Bayreuth as a fifteen-year-old boy, I wept for fourteen days, and then I became a musician.’ [‘Als ich als fünfzehnjähriger Junge zum erstenmal in Bayreuth den Parsifal gehört habe, habe ich vierzehn Tage lang geheult, und dann bin ich Musiker gewordea’] Ibid., 266. The account appeared as well in Adolf Spemann, ed., Max-Reger-Brevier (Stuttgart: Engelhom, 1923), 34. That is, as Riemann understood musical style. Riemann’s cosmopolitan interests extended from Byzantine music through contemporary composition. On the significance of Riemann for Reger, see especially Curt Herold’s 1912 essay ‘Der Einfluss Hugo Riemann’s auf Max Reger,’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 20 Decem­ ber 1912, 1371-1372. See also Gerd Sievers, Die Grundlagen Hugo Riemanns bei Max Reger (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1967) and Ludger Lohmann, ‘Hugo Riemann and Musical Performance Practice,’ in Proceedings o f the Göteborg International Organ Academy 1994, ed. Hans Davidsson and Sverker Jullander (Göteborg: Göteborg Univer­ sity, 1995), 251-283. Reger would maintain a deep respect for Riemann’s contributions to the then-young field of musicology, and in 1907 he still regarded his former teacher

34

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

‘as by far the greatest theoretician not only of our time, but also since Rameau’ [‘ ... als weitaus hervorragendstem Theoretiker nicht nur unserer Zeit, sondern seit Rameau... ’]. Max Reger, ‘Degeneration und Regeneration in der Musik,’ in Susanne Shigihara, ‘Die Konfusion in der Musik V Felix Draesekes Kampfschrift von 1906 und ihre Folgen, Veröffentlichungen der Internationalen Draeseke-Gesellschaft, ed. Helmut Loos, no. 4 (Bonn: Schröder, 1990), 257-258. Reger believed, however, that Riemann applied his theories pedantically, and Riemann accused Reger of writing needlessly complex, unnatural music. In the various editions of his Lexicon Riemann documented his declin­ ing opinion of Reger’s music; an open exchange came in 1907 with Riemann’s essay ‘Degeneration und Regeneration in der Musik,’ Max Hesses Deutscher Musiker-Kalen­ der fur das Jahr 1908 23 (Leipzig: 1908): 136-138; and Reger’s reply by the same title, cited above, \n Neue Musikzeitung, 3\ October 1907,49-51. Riemann’s essay is likewise reprinted by Shigihara, ‘Die Konfusion in der Musik, ' 245-249. 8. Rainer Cadenbach offers a remarkable psychological portrait of Reger during his for­ mative years in Weiden, Sondershausen, and Wiesbaden. The effects of a provincial, extremely conservative Roman Catholic upbringing are important factors, as are the dis­ approval of Reger’s family as to his career choice and marriage to a divorced Protestant woman, and the resultant high premium Reger placed upon the approval of others, an approval that was seldom forthcoming until his friendship with Karl Straube. See espe­ cially Chapters 1 and 2 in Cadenbach, Max Reger und seine Zeit, as well as the relevant source documents, many published for the first time, in Popp, ed., Der junge Reger. 9. ‘Ich weiß nicht, ob Herr Reger selbst ein bedeutender Oi^elspieler ist, ich möchte es aber fast annehmen, weil seine Kompositionen dem ausfiihrenden Künstler Schwierigkeiten bieten, wie sie schwieriger kaum gedacht werden können.’ Heinrich Lang, ‘Komposi­ tionen von Max Reger,’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 6 December 1901, 800. 10. Nicolas Slonimsky, Music Since 1900, 5th ed., (New York: Schirmer, 1994), 170. Curi­ ously, Slonimsky does not at all mention Reger’s activity as a chamber pianist, around which the vast majority of his performance career centered before 1911 and for which he received much acclaim in the press. 11. Reger’s teaching appointment in Wiesbaden included piano as well as organ, and it undoubtedly came about as a result of Riemann’s influence there. His duties at Munich, which he relinquished in little more than a year, included the teaching of composition, counterpoint, and organ. See ‘Verzeichnis der Direktoren, Inspektoren und Lehrkräfte der Akademie der Tonkunst seit Bestehen’ in Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen der Akademie der Tonkunst in München 1874-1924, by the Akademie der Tonkunst (Munich: Selbstverlag der Akademie der Tonkunst, 1924), 87-91; ‘Notizen,’ Urania 62 (March 1905): 25; and Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 72/2 (1905): 32. See further also Chapter 4 regarding Reger’s Munich appointment. 12. * ... ein Fingerzeig für die Ausführung gleichartiger Orgelwerke von Bach.’ Walter Fischer, Über die Wiedergabe der Orgel-Kompositionen Max Regers: Vortrag Jur die Generalversammlung Westfalischer Organisten zu Dortmund im Mai 1910 (Cöln: Tischer & Jagenberg, 1910), 11. Fischer’s lecture, probably delivered on 9 May 1910, was part of the Reger Festival in Dortmund between 7 and 9 May. Straube, who was probably pres­

Regen Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

13.

14. 15.

16. 17. 18.

19. 20.

35

ent at the lecture and whose ideas about Bach performance differed from Reger’s, would certainly have disagreed with this view. On 12 March 1906, Straube had written to Karl Hasse, who, after having been one of Straube’s first pupils at Leipzig, studied with Reger at Munich: ‘I regret Reger’s way of interpreting Bach because my own artistic goals in this matter could be misunderstood as soon as Reger sets up school.’ [‘Regers Art Bach’s Orgelwerke zu interpretieren bedaure ich deshalb, weil meine persönlichen künstlerischen Ziele in diesem Punkt dadurch mißverstanden werden könnten, sobald Reger Schule macht.’] Cited in Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 109. ‘(NB. für die Ausarbeitung und Veröffentlichung solchergestalt kunstreich und stilgere­ cht gesetzter Orgelstimmen wäre Max Reger der rechte Man.)’ C. K., Musikalisches Wochenblatt, 11 April 1907,347. Already in 1899, the Wiesbaden Reger advocate Cäsar Hochstetter had flatly asserted, ‘On the organ Reger is a modem J. S. Bach’ [‘Auf der Orgel ist Reger ein moderner J. S. Bach.’]. ‘Noch einmal Max Reger,’ Die Redenden Künste 5/49 (28 August 1899): 938, 943, and 945; reproduced in Popp, ed., Der junge Reger, 427. ‘ ... die ihrem Zwecke nicht mehr völlig genügende Übungsorgel.’ Lindner, Max Reger, 38. ‘ ... der Grund [ist] gelegt worden zu einer umfassenden Kenntnis des Orgelbaus, die ihm später bei seinen eigenen großartigen Schöpfungen für das hehre Instrument Cäcilias gar trefflich zustatten kommen sollte.’ Ibid. Lindner’s monograph does not escape the kind of hyperbole one might expect from a proud, otherwise unknown music teacher describ­ ing a successful pupil. That both father and son were inexperienced at such an organ construction project, however, is clear from Lindner’s account. ‘ ... erst verschiedene Messen und endlich die ganze katholische Orgelliturgie beim Hochamt und in der Vesper... *Ibid., 39. ‘ ... zu den Bachfugen Schumanns und Stücken von Bach, Mendelssohn und Liszt ...* Ibid. ‘Wenn er da an hohen Festtagen bei Beginn und am Schlüsse des Gottesdienstes mit dem vollen Werke seiner unerschöpflichen Phantasie freien Lauf ließ, konnte man Akkorde und Akkordverbindungen von solch unerhörter Kühnheit vernehmen, daß es wohl vergeb­ lich gewesen wäre, solche in einem der damals gebräuchlichen Lehrbücher für Har­ monielehre zu entdecken.—Den Gipfel aber erreichte diese harmonische Rigorosität, nachdem sich mein Organist auch tief in die Tonwelt Richard Wagners versenkt hatte. Seine Improvisationen wurden da immer chromatischer, dissonanzengespickter und oft dermaßen tonreich und vollgriffig, daß mein armer alter Balgtreter trotz größter Anstreng­ ung mittels der vier großen, teilweise schon defekten Schöpfbälge nicht mehr das nötige Windquantum herbeizubringen vermochte und manchmal nicht übel Lust zeigte, inmit­ ten dieser grausamen Sisyphusarbeit auf und davon zu laufen.’ Ibid., 39-40. Lindner is really quite clever to mention Sisyphus, the mythological son of the wind god Aeolus, in this context. ‘ ... von immens grundlegender Bedeutung ... ’ Ibid., 40. ‘ ... die sämtlichen Orgelwerke Bachs, Mendelssohns ... ’ Letter of 26 December 1902. Hermann Wilske cites the letter in his 1995 monograph Max Reger: Zur Rezeption in

36

21.

22.

23. 24.

25.

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition seiner Zeit, and he offers the best discussion of Reger’s technical ability to date, 84-86. According to Elsa Reger, Reger was able in 1901 to play his Fantasy and Fugue on BACH op. 46 ‘with overwhelming beauty’ [überwältigend schön], a fact which, if not exaggerated, would indicate considerable technical accomplishment. Ibid., 39. However, it is significant that Reger himself, who tended in most cases to speak well of his key­ board ability, as far as I know never did so with reference to the organ. On the contrary, he consistently referred to Straube all requests for solo performances. Writers have tended to overemphasize the importance of the Wiesbaden Marktkirche organ. Hermann Busch asserted as late as 1988 that the instrument probably influenced Reger substantially. See his ‘Die Orgelwelt Max Regers,’ in Zur Interpretation der Orgelmusik Max Regers, 9-11. Whereas we know he tried out some original organ pieces there in 1892 and 1893, there is no reason to think that he ‘often’ [‘häufig’] did so, as Busch writes in 1973 in ‘Max Reger und die Orgel seiner Zeit,’ Musik und Kirche 43 (1973): 64, or to conclude that the instrument influenced him to a greater degree than any other organ Reger played or heard. If Reger was impressed with the various registration aids (‘Spielhilfen’) present on the instrument, this is not evident in his solo organ works from the Wiesbaden period (Three Pieces op. 7 from the summer/autumn of 1892, the two chorale preludes without opus number O Traurigkeit and Komm, süßer Tod from the winter of 1893/1894, and the Suite in E minor op. 16 from the winter of 1895). Bernard Haas’s statement that the registration instructions in the Phantasie über den Choral Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27, composed in August 1898 after Reger had heard Straube play in Frankfurt/M. earlier that year, ‘obviously’ [‘offenbar’] refer to the Wiesbaden organ is equally untenable. See Haas’ ‘Regers Werktexte als Interpretation­ sansatz,* in Busch, Zur Interpretation, 36-50. Busch as well attempts to show how the registration indications in op. 27 might derive from the Wiesbaden organ in his ‘Max Reger und die Orgel seiner Zeit,’ 66. ‘ ... eine ziemlich schwerspielige Traktur und lange, schwer zu ziehende Registerhebel... ’Lindner, Max Reger, 39. The Stadtpfarrkirche is synonymous with the Michaeliskirche or Simultankirche, so called because Weiden’s Catholic and Protestant parishes shared the property until 1900. ‘ ... von einem Meister aus ‘Niederteutschland’ ... ’ Ibid., 40. ‘Eine Manualkoppel findet sich in dieser Disposition nicht vor. Die Verkoppelung von Haupt- und Oberwerk mußte durch Verschiebung der Klaviatur des letzteren bewerkstel­ ligt werden, eine unpraktische, schwerfällige, leicht versagende und während des Spieles oft kaum realisierbare Sache.’ Ibid., 41. ‘Hauptwerk’ stops Quinte 5 1/3’, Subbaß 16’, and Octavbaß 8’ are of course pedal ranks. See Walter’s discussion of the StadtpfarrkircheAVeiden and its instrument before and after the nineteenth-century renovations in his ‘Max Regers Beziehungen zur katholischen Kirchenmusik,’ in Max Reger 1873-1973: Ein Symposion, 124-128. The organ had a manual compass of 47 notes, from which Walter posits a short octave C D E F G A - d3. He corrects Lindner’s stoplist in the following manner. Hauptwerk: minus Hohl­ flöte 8’; plus Amorosa 8’, Quinte 3’. Oberwerk: minus Geigenprinzipal 4’; plus Fugara 4*. Pedal: minus Quinte 5 1/3’. By Reger’s day, the organ had been revoiced according

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

26. 27.

28. 29.

30. 31.

32.

37

to nineteenth-century standards, at which time the pitch was lowered 1/4 tone from its eighteenth-century (and earlier?) status. Hugo Riemann, Katechismus der Orgel (Orgellehre), Max Hesses illustrierte Katechis­ men no. 4 (Leipzig: Hesse, 1888). ‘ ... beeinflußt durch den Klang der alten Orgeln ... ’ Letter of 29 November 1946 to Fritz Stein. Karl Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, ed. Wilibald Gurlitt and HansOlaf Hudemann (Stuttgart: K. F. Koehler, 1952), 214. Straube’s statement is ambiguous, but by ‘old organs’ he probably intends a simple distinction between the orchestrally oriented instruments of Sauer (which until at least ca. 1920 Straube tended to equate with ‘the modem organ*) and virtually everything before it. In any case, his comment addresses organ sonority exclusively, typical for Straube throughout his career. Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 31 passim. Johannes Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung seiner Musikerpersönlichkeit anlässlich seiner 25jährigen Tätigkeit in Leipzig (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1928). Wolgast was at the time of the writing a faculty member at the Leipzig Conservatory’s Kirchen­ musikalisches Institut. He claims three periods of study with Straube (1914, 1918-1919, and 1919-1923), whereas the institution’s records confirm only the year 1914. Wolgast’s short monograph contains the most detailed biographical data available, much of it presumably drawn from interviews with Straube himself. Of great value is Wolgast’s admittedly incomplete list of Straube’s pupils through 1927, containing the only docu­ mentation of those students who studied with him prior to his appointment at the Leipzig Conservatory in October 1907. Apart from Wolgast, the authors who treat Straube’s early years in Berlin are Franz Adam Beyerlein, ‘Karl Straube,’ Zeitschrift fur Musik 97 (November 1930): 889-897; Idem, ‘Karl Straubes Leben,’ in Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde (Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1943), 364-385; Christoph Held, ‘Karl Straubes Lebensstationen,* in Karl Straube: Wirken und Wirkung, ed. Christoph and Ingrid Held (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1976), 9-24; Hans Klotz, ‘Straube’ in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Friedrich Blume, voi. 12 (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1965), 1442-1446; and Wilibald Gurlitt (?), ‘Straube’ in Riemann Musik Lexicon, 12th ed, ed. Wilibald Gurlitt, voi. 2 (Mainz: Schott, 1961), 739-740. ‘ ... sprach fließend deutsch, französisch, italienisch, sie las die Bibel im griechischen und hebräischen Urtext.’ Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 4. Straube seems to have doubted his talent for music: see e.g. Fritz Stein, ‘Der Freund und Vorkämpfer Max Regers: Erinnerungen an Karl Straube,* Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 114 (1953): 144. Throughout his life, he tended to promote an image of himself as an intel­ lectual who happened to make music, rather than as a musician with intellectual interests. Straube’s letters are as likely to treat points of literature, philosophy, history, or theology as they are to address musical concerns. On the rise of conservatory music education and its negative implications for musical competence in general, see Hugo Riemann’s contemporary essays ‘Unsere Konser­ vatorien,’ in Hugo Riemann, Präludien und Studien, vol. 1 (Leipzig: 1895; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967), 22-33; and ‘Musikunterricht sonst und jetzt’ in Ibid., vol. 2, (Leipzig: 1900; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967), 1-32.

38

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

33.

‘ theoretische und kompositorische Arbeiten ... ’ Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 11. Karl Straube, ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,’ 85. Reimann’s name is the one most consis­ tently identified with Straube in all source materials. The date of Straube’s entry into the National Socialist party (NSDAP), given by Straube in his 1945 ‘Rehabilitationsgesuch’ as 1933, but convincingly demonstrated by Günter Hartmann as 1926, is one example of erroneous biography. See Karl Straube, ‘Rehabilitionsgesuch 1945,’ Musik und Kirche 62 (1992): 157-163; and Günther Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 256-257. Another example concerns the circumstances of Straube’s application for the position of Music Director in Münster in 1900 (withdrawn not, as reported by both Wolgast in 1928 and Beyerlein in 1930, for confessional rea­ sons, but rather, as shown by Martin Blindow in 1995, because Straube learned shortly before the committee’s decision that he would almost certainly be rejected). See Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 14; Beyerlein, ‘Karl Straube,’ 889; and Martin Blindow, ‘Regers und Straubes Beziehungen zu Münster: Zwei unbekannte Reger-Briefe,’ Musik und Kirche 65 (1995): 129-133. ‘Rechnet man den Umstand dazu, daß der geistig und musikalisch universale Karl Straube im formalen Wortsinn ‘Selfmademan’ war, ... so hat man das unterschwellige Motiv für seine Wertungs-Kondition.’ Piersig, ‘So ging es allenfalls,’ 117-118. Piersig, who earlier in the same essay pointed out that a Straube scholarship based on critical norms does not yet exist, meant that Straube had little institutional education and was therefore self-made ‘in the formal sense.’ Cf. Franz Adam Beyerlein in 1930: ‘He learned from his father ... the rudiments of organ playing and subsequently enjoyed, without however having actually become a pupil of anyone, instruction is this subject with Heinrich Reimann among others ... ’ [‘Er sieht seinem Vater... die Anfangsgründe des Orgelspiels ab und genießt weiterhin, ohne jedoch eigentlich irgend jemandes Schüler zu werden, Unterweisung in diesem Fache, u. a. von Heinrich Reimann ... *] Beyerlein, ‘Karl Straube,’ 889; also Christoph Held in 1976: ‘With various teachers—Heinrich Reimann ... was the most important—, but in essence really self-taught, he developed himself into the prime organ master in Germany ... ’ [‘Bei verschiedenen Lehrern—Heinrich Reimann ... war der wichtigste—, im wes­ entlichen aber wohl doch autodidaktisch, entwickelte er sich ... zum ersten Orgelmeister in Deutschland.’] Held, ‘Karl Straubes Lebensstationen,’ 9-10. ‘ ... einige Sachen von Joh. Christ. Heinr. Rinck, sowie leichtere Werke von Bach.’ Wol­ gast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 6. The Rinck pieces undoubtedly were extracted from the Praktische Orgelschule op. 55, which Dienel had newly edited for Simrock in 1882. Straube does not mention Dienel in his correspondence or in any of his published writings. ‘ ... einer der volkstümlichsten und für seine Zeit fortschrittlichsten Orgelspieler Ber­ lins.’ Ibid., 6. ‘Den ersten Orgelunterricht erhielt Karl Straube durch Otto Dienel auf dessen alter Wag­ ner-Orgel in der Marienkirche.’ Ibid. See Heinz Herbert Steves, ‘Der Orgelbauer Joachim Wagner, ’Archivfür Musikforschung

34. 35.

36.

37.

38.

39. 40. 41.

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

42.

43.

44.

45.

39

4 (1939): 321-358. See also Otto Dienel’s own essay ‘Abt Voglers Simplification der Marien-Orgel vom Jahre 1800,’ Die Orgelbauzeitung 1 (1879). The present disposition is from Wagner’s original contract as reproduced by Steves. Aside from its casework, the organ no longer exists. ‘Was ich mit meiner Schrift bezwecke, ist nur die Klarstellung der Einzelheiten, in welchen sich die Tractur und Disposition der modernen Orgel von der alten unter­ scheidet, durch welche Einflüsse diese Umgestaltung hervorgerufen wurde, und wie die veränderte Klangfarbe und vermehrte Beweglichkeit der modernen Orgel auch eine v e r ä n d e r t e B e h a n d l u n g e r m ö g l i c h t u n d e r f o r d e r t . [K] Dass die von mir vorgeschlagenen technischen Reformen auch nur n a c h i r g e n d e i n e r S e i t e h i n die Zwecke der Orgel, soweit diese kirchlich sind, stören oder gar profaniren könnten, muss ich entschieden in Abrede stellen ... [f] Schliesslich lag mir ob, die moderne Orgel als Solo-Instrument zu betrachten und die Art und Weise des Vortrages von Compositionen, die fur die alte Orgel geschrieben sind, vornehmlich der Bach’schen Orgel-Compositionen, eingehend zu besprechen.’ Otto Dienel, Die moderne Orgel: ihre Einrichtung, ihre Bedeutungfür die Kirche und ihre Stellung zu Sebastian Bach ’s Orgel­ musik (Berlin: Hannemann, 1890 and 1903), preface. The expanded and bold types are Dienel’s. Dienel tended to equate nuance with registration and the extent to which registration should be modified in the course of a piece. He was concerned with the evidently wide­ spread and, in his opinion, unmusical practice of playing Bach’s free works on an unre­ mitting full organ. He did not seem to recognize that the plenum of old instruments was designed to be at once more transparent and more tolerable to the ear over long periods than that of the (literally) full organ of Sauer, a fact which should have been readily observable on the organ at the Marienkirche. In any case, the preoccupation with tone color so typical of the period would reappear as the basis for the theories of virtu­ ally every German Orgelbewegung adherent except Hans Henny Jahnn, whose concerns were more balanced among issues of sound, action, case design, etc. ‘Der rechte Bach-Spieler wird der sein, der seine Subjectivität in der Bach’s aufgehen lässt und die modernen Mittel nur zu klarer Darlegung der Bach’schen Ideen in einer Bach nachempfundenen, von ihm selbst angedeuteten idealen Weise verwendet. Ein solcher wird auch bei Anwendung der durch die moderne Orgelbautechnik gebotenen Mittel das Richtige zu wählen im Stande sein, ja diese Mittel werden ihn erst befähigen, der rechte für unsere Zeit verständliche Interpret Bach’s zu werden.* Ibid., 89. ‘Eine Anregung, sich eingehender als bisher mit der grossen Kunst der ewig jungen, alten Meister zu beschäftigen, vor allen den direkt beteiligten Kreisen zu geben, ist der Zweck der Veröffentlichung dieses Bandes. Dass die Erreichung eines solchen Zieles nicht ohne einen stärkeren Einschlag subjektiven Empfindens zu ermöglichen ist, weiss ein jeder, der an ähnlichen Aufgaben sich versucht hat. “Wie ich es sehe”, davon zeugt denn auch jede der vierzehn Bearbeitungen, welche auf den nachfolgenden Seiten ver­ einigt sind ... Als Mensch der Gegenwart habe ich mich nicht gescheut, alle Aus­ drucksmittel der modernen Orgel heranzuziehen, um eine musikalische Wiedergabe “den Affekten” gemäss zu ermöglichen.’ Karl Straube, ed. Alte Meister des Orgelspiels:

40

46.

47. 48.

49.

50.

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition eine Sammlung deutscher Orgelkompositionen aus dem XVII und XVIII Jahrhundert (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1904), 2. Although it is perhaps debatable what Straube means by ‘similar projects,* other editors of his day would in fact publish old organ music ‘without a rather strong element of subjective feeling’: cf. Alexandre Guilmant’s Archives des Maîtres de POrgue des XVIe et XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Paris: Durand, 1898-1910) and Arnold Schering’s Alte Meister aus der Frühzeit des Orgelspiels (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1913). ‘Wie wenig allerdings auch Reimann als unmittelbarer Lehrer Straubes in Frage kommt, erhellt schon aus der geringen Zahl von Werken, die er bei ihm gespielt hat, nämlich:... Außer diesen Werken hat er Reimann noch Liszts Phantasie und Fuge über ‘B-A-C-H* abgeguckt.’ Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 6-7. Straube edited both the Muffai and Pachelbel pieces in his 1904 Alte Meister des Orgelspiels, 62 and 79 respectively. ‘ ... durch den Umgang mit Heinrich Reimann, dann aber auch durch die Lektüre von Spittas Bach-Biographie.’ Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 11. ‘In der Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche fand am 3. d. Mts. ein Konzert statt, an welchem sich ausser Herrn Waldemar Meyer und dem A-capella-Chor des Herrn H. Putsch ein junger Orgelspieler, Herr Karl Straube, betheiligte. Von dem letzteren hörte ich Rheinberger’s Ddur-Sonate und Liszt’s Ave Maria und Trauerode. Dass Herr Straube unter verständiger Leitung tüchtige Studien getrieben hat, hörte man bald, jedoch besitzt er noch nicht die unbedingte Sicherheit in der technischen Behandlung des komplizirten Instrumentes der Orgel. In erster Linie vermisste ich, namentlich sobald das volle Werk in Aktion trat, rhythmische Straffheit im Spiel, die bei so kolossalen Tonmassen erste Bedingung ist. Dass der Uebergang von einem Manual zum andern nicht immer glatt genug erfolg­ te, hat vielleicht die ungewohnte Aufregung verursacht. Aber sehr zu empfehlen ist Herrn Straube ein weiseres Maasshalten im Gebrauche des Rollschwellers. So schöne Wirkungen er damit manchmal erzielte, so sehr störte anderwärts die überhastete und übertriebene Inanspruchnahme desselben; lag das Stimmengewebe eben noch klar und deutlich vor uns, so ergossen sich plötzlich ganz unvermittelt donnernde Tonwellen darüber, die das schöne musikalische Bild von vorher unbarmherzig in den Strudel des Nicht-Verständlichen hinwegrissen. Die echt künstlerische Beschränkung muss auch gelernt werden. Man darf Herrn Straube rathen, in dieser Beziehung sich noch nicht all­ zusehr für fertig zu halten.* Max Seiffert, review of Karl Straube at the Heilig-KreuzKirche/Berlin on 3 March 1893, Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 10 March 1893, 143. The fact of Straube’s performance and Seiffert’s description of it have until now not come to light because Wolgast (who is undoubtedly reflecting information given him by Straube in the 1920s) stated that Straube first performed in 1894. It is very possible (though undemonstrable) that Straube, who tended to omit negative information about his life, intentionally neglected to report it. The destruction of the archive at the Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche/Berlin during World War II and the attendant heavy damage to the church itself precludes, at least for the moment, obtaining further information about the instrument there. Mit Freude kann ich von dem Kirchenkonzert berichten, das Herr Karl Straube am 20. Februar in der Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche veranstaltete. Der junge Orgelvirtuos hat sich in

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

51.

52. 53.

54.

55. 56. 57.

58. 59.

41

der letzten Zeit außerordentlich vervollkommnet. Neben der schon früher bemerkten, rein technischen Sicherheit auf den Manualen und dem Pedal kam diesmal auch ein abgeklärter, feiner Geschmack fur die Intimitäten der Vortragskunst auf der Orgel zu Tage. Bach’s Gdur-Fuge, Rüfer’s Gmoll-Sonate, Liszt’s ‘Ave Maria’ (dessen Schluß leider versäuselte) und BACH-Fantasie ließen in steigendem Maße erkennen, wie überlegt und des künstlerischen Zweckes bewußt Herr Straube die Ausdrucksmittel des Instrumentes zur Interpretation der Kunstwerke heranzog. Max Seiffert, Review of Karl Straube in the Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche/Berlin on 20 February 1894, Allgemeine Musik-Zei­ tung, 2 March 1894, 129. Wolgast called Straube Reimanns ‘ständiger Vertreter.’ Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 11. See the announcement of Straube as Reimann’s substitute in Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 14/21 August 1896, 458. Heinrich Reimann, ‘Die neue Sauer’sche Orgel in der Kaiser Wilhelm-Gedächtnisskirche zu Charlottenburg-Berlin,’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 30 August 1895,434. ‘Eine ebenso einfache, als sinnreiche Einrichtung ermöglicht es, jede der eingestellten Kombinationen während des Spieles, d.h. während des Gebrauches der betreffenden Kombination beliebig zu ändern, zu verstärken oder abzuschwächen. Auch die Koppeln können in die Kombinationen, ebenfalls während des Spieles, beliebig eingestellt, bezw. ausgeschaltet werden.’ Ibid. ‘ ... besitzt R ö h r e n - P n e u m a t i k , nach einem längst bewährten und außerordentlich zuverlässig, sicher und unübertrefflich präcise wirkenden, vom Erbauer erfundenen Sys­ teme.’ Ibid. The expanded type is Reimann’s. Sauer’s pneumatic system had convinced Reimann of its artistic worth: in the 1900 reprint of his 1891 essay ‘Noch einmal über den Vortrag der Orgelkompositionen Johann Sebastian Bachs,* he inserted the new sen­ tence ‘Of all systems I have found Sauer’s pneumatic cone chest to be the most solid and reliable; its action is likewise by far the most pleasing to me.* [‘Von allen Systemen habe ich als am solidesten und zuverläßigsten die Sauer’sche pneumatische Kegellade erprobt, deren Spielart mir auch bei weitem die allerangenehmste ist.’] Heinrich Reimann, ‘Noch einmal über den Vortrag der Orgelkompositionen Johann Sebastian Bachs,’ in Heinrich Reimann, Musikalische Rückblicke (Berlin: Harmonie, 1900), 147. Cf. the original form of the passage in Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 9 January 1891, 18. Heinrich Reimann, ‘Die Orgel in der Kaiser Wilhelm-Gedächtnisskirche zu Charlottenburg-Berlin,’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 19 March 1897,178-179. ‘ ... eine überaus schön gelungene Physharmonica 16’ (nach dem Muster der Freiburger) und eine kräftige 8’-Flöte... ’Ibid., 179. ‘ ... wird ... noch ein Glockenspiel (Pedal, im 4*-Ton) nach Art des von Bach in der Am­ städter Orgel vorgesehenen anbringen.’ Ibid. Reimann added ‘As is well known, even Bach liked to use it for certain chorales (“Vom Himmel hoch,” “In dulci jubilo” etc.).’ [‘Für einige Choräle (“Vom Himmel hoch”, “In dulci jubilo” usw.) ist es bekanntlich selbst von Bach mit Vorliebe gebraucht worden.’] Ibid. ‘ ... unter dem größtmöglichen Winddrucke ... *Ibid. ‘ ... nicht mehr zu übertreffenden Anzahl und Schönheit seiner Klangwirkungen... *Ibid., 178.

42

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

60. Probably at Straube’s request, Sauer would include six free combinations on the Leipzig Conservatory organ in 1909. See Chapter 4 and Appendix 6. 61. ‘Je zahlreicher die Stimmen einer Orgel sind, desto unpraktikabler wird das Instrument o h n e die Kombinationszüge. Als ein Monstrum von Unhandlichkeit erscheint mir in dieser Hinsicht die so vielgerühmte Orgel im neuen Ulmer Dom, welche bei ihren 101 Registern kaum 3 oder 4 Kombinationszüge hat. Als ein Unikum technischer Vollendung hingegen die neue Orgel in C h i c a g o, welche am 12. Oktober v. J. zum ersten Mal öffentlich gespielt wurde (Herr E d d y , ein Schüler unseres Altmeisters Haupt ) . * Reimann, ‘Noch einmal über den Vortrag,’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 9 January 1891, 18. The expanded type is Reimann’s. 62. ‘Als ein Unikum technischer Vollendung bei größter Einfachheit und Uebersichtlichkeit [ist] die Orgel in der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtnißkirche zu Berlin mit ihren 91 Stimmen (incl. Glockenspiel) und einem Echowerke von staunenswerther vollendeter Schönheit.’ Reimann, ‘Noch einmal über den Vortrag,* Musikalische Rückblicke, 148. 63. On Sauer’s organ for the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtnißkirche see further Hans-Joachim Falkenberg, Der Orgelbauer Wilhelm Sauer 1831-1916: Leben und Werk (Lauffen: Orgelbau-Fachverlag Rensch, 1990), 266-269. Falkenberg overlooked the fact that the instrument originally existed in the three-manual form cited above. The organ was destroyed in 1944. 64. ‘Als ich mir bei meinem Lehrer Heinrich Reimann und durch intensives privates Studium die Orgeltechnik erworben hatte, um für meine Zeit, d.h. das letzte Jahrzehnt vor der Jah­ rhundertwende, von der Orgel her Bach neu zu erschließen, war die Musik Wagners und Liszts das beherrschende Kunsterlebnis des Up-to-date-Musikers und -Musikliebhabers ... Diese Einschätzung räumte Wagners Orchesterkunst im Zeitalter eines grenzenlosen Ich-Kultes eine Vormachtstellung im musikalischen Schaffen ein, die von keinem andern schaffenden Geist ernstlich bestritten wurde ... Die Magie des Wagnerschen Orchesterk­ langes ging so weit, daß man geneigt war, die Größe früherer Meister an der Stärke ihres Nachhalls in Wagners Kunstschaffen abzumessen. Man entdeckte mancherlei WagnerÄhnlichkeiten in der vorwagnerschen Musik und hörte noch viel mehr in sie hinein. [|] Wenn die damals in einem dicken Klangbrei festgefahrene Pflege des Bachschen Orgelwerkes von den Fesseln eines schulmeisterlichen Konservativismus überhaupt bef­ reit und der Ruf des Unmodern- und Veraltetseins von Bachs Musik genommen werden konnte, dann war das nur durch eine Aufführungsstil möglich, der mit Wagnerscher Klangsinnlichkeit Bach nachschuf... fl[] Ich betrachtete es also als meine Organistenauf­ gabe, die Kühnheit Bachscher Musik, ihren über alle Traditionen und Konventionen der Tonsprache hinauswachsenden Persönlichkeitsausdruck mit allen Klangmöglichkeiten der modernen Orgel hörbar zu machen. Zwei künstlerische Anregungen, die ich aus meinen Berliner Lehrjahren in mein Organistenamt an der Willibrordi-Kirche in Wesel mitnahm, waren für meine Bach-Auffassung von entscheidendem Einfluß. [f] Die eine ging von Heinrich Reimann aus, von der impulsiven Art, mit der er mit dem damals in Berlin üblichen Schlendrian, Bach auf der Orgel in einem gleichförmigen Fortissimo zu spielen, aufräumte. Reimann kam aus der Schule des Breslauer Dom­ kapellmeisters Moritz Brosig, der gegen diesen starren Berliner Bach-Stil entschieden

Regen Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

43

opponierte. Reimann führte den Kampf gegen diese Klang-Pedanterie als eine kluge und temperamentvolle Künstlerpersönlichkeit weiter. Selbst ein Wagnerianer und Lisztianer, erkannte er doch, wie den im Banne Wagners stehenden Musikfreunden die “Königin der Instrumente” entfremdet wurde. Ihm gelang ihre Ehrenrettung nicht nur durch seine Wiedergabe der zeitgenössischen Orgelwerke eines Liszt und Julius Reubke, deren dyna­ mische Forderungen er durch einen differenzierten Klang von orchestraler Farbigkeit erfüllte. Er erweckte auch den Berliner Bach-Stil durch seine Crescendo-Technik aus der Erstarrung. Reimann pflegte auf der Orgel eine Fuge von Bach in einem Mezzoforte zu beginnen, das er mit gelegentlicher Ausweichung auf das zweite und dritte Manual bis zum vollen Werk am Schluß steigerte. Erhöht wurde die Wirkung dieses weitges­ pannten Crescendos durch ein stetiges Accelerando. Meistens war das Schlußtempo noch einmal so schnell wie der Anfang... [t] Die von Reimann bei Bachs Werken nur an der Lautstärke geübte Differenzierungskunst auch auf den Klangcharakter anzuwenden und die Farbe des einzelnen Registers und besonderer Registergruppen als Stimmung­ swert einzusetzen, war der zweite Schritt zur Rehabilitierung der Orgel als Bach-Instru­ ment. Ich habe ihn getan in vollem Bewußtsein, daß ich damit etwas anderes erstrebte, als Reimann beabsichtigte. Reimann suchte wohl in Bach in erster Linie das große klangli­ che Pathos, das der Orgel die verlorene königliche Würde zurückgab. Ich bemühte mich, durch die Ausnutzung aller Klangmöglichkeiten der modernen Orgel in der objektivi­ erten Tonsprache Bachscher Polyphonie den subjektiven Ursprung mittönen zu lassen, der bei Bach doch niemals die Form zersprengt, sondern sie in ihrer Klarheit nur vor einem starren Schematismus bewahrt.* Straube, ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,* 85-87. 65. In 1905, Straube compared the instruments of Walcker and Sauer: ‘I personally prefer Wilhelm Sauer’s way; it stands in organic relation to the entire development of the modem sound aesthetic. Sauer’s tone color is more differentiated, one might even say more sensitive than that of Walcker. Walcker compensates for this (by) great magnif­ icence and weight in the sound.* [‘Mir persönlich ist Wilhelm Sauers Art lieber, sie steht in organischen Beziehungen zu der gesamten Entwicklung, welche das moderne Klangempfinden genommen hat. Sauers Tonfarbe ist differenzierter, ich möchte fast sagen, feinfühliger als die eines Walcker. Walcker entschädigt dafür (durch) eine große Klangpracht und Klangwucht.’] Cited from the archives of E. F. Walcker/Ludwigsburg by Heinz Wunderlich, ‘Zur Bedeutung und Interpretation von Regers Orgelwerken,* Musik und Kirche 43 (1973): 15. By 1905, Straube’s view was based on experience not only with Sauer’s Kaiser Wilhelm organ, but also with the Sauer instruments of Wesel and Leipzig (see below). 66. ‘Ich lernte auf der Orgel Bach singen ... Jede Linie im polyphonen Gefüge faßte ich als ein Stück musikalisches Leben auf. Es durfte keine tote Bewegung mehr geben, die den Klang nur füllte und verdickte, aber nicht individualisierte. Jeder Kon­ trapunkt sollte wirklich als Kontrapunkt gehört werden, als eine sprechende Stimme im Orgelchor. In den scheinbar nebensächlichen oder zufälligen motivischen Ausformun­ gen die organischen Beziehungen zum Ganzen freizulegen, das war das Ziel.* Straube, ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,’ 87. 67. ‘ ... in erster Linie die dynamischen Abtönungen einer Melodie.’ Heinrich Reimann,

44

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition ‘Ueber den Vortrag der Orgelkompositionen Johann Sebastian Bachs,’ in Heinrich Reimann, Musikalische Rückblicke (Berlin: Harmonie, 1900), 135. Reimann did not treat issues of phrasing and articulation in either essay. He came close only when he touched briefly on the subject of organ action: ‘The mechanism of the organ, regardless of which system is employed, must be unconditionally reliable, the action light and elastic.* [‘Die Mechanik der Orgel—gleichviel welches System angewendet wird—muß unbedingt zuverläßig, die Spielart leicht und elastisch sein.’] Reimann, ‘Noch einmal über den Vortrag.’ 147. As far as I know, Ludger Lohmann is the first to recognize this relationship in print. See Lohmann, ‘Hugo Riemann and the Development of Musical Performance Practice,* 277. As Lohmann points out, Straube did claim to ‘follow in general the teaching of Hugo Riemann’ [‘ ... folgt im allgemeinen der Anweisung Hugo Riemanns’] with regard to the performance of mordents in his 1913 Bach edition, the only reference by him to Riemann of which I am aware. See Johann Sebastian Bach, Orgelwerke Bandii, ed. Karl Straube (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1913), 5, note J. On the details of Straube’s phrasing practice in Reger, see Chapter 2. Reger made reference to Riemann only five times in his extant correspondence with Straube, the first from 19 November 1902, and only one of those addressed a specific point in Riemann’s theoiy. ‘Sehr geehrter Herr Dr, Die Compositionen Ihres Schülers Max Reger habe ich mit gros­ sem Interesse durchgesehen. Das ist eine ausserordentlich intensive musikalische Natur, die manchem Kopfschmerzen machen mag! Es weht ein jugendfrischer kräftiger Zug durch all’ diese Sachen u. man kann mit Bestimmtheit erwarten, daß, nach dem so man­ ches sich in ihm geklärt und objektiver geworden—seine eigenste Künstlerindividualität noch bestimmter u deutlicher hervortritt, als sie sich jetzt bereits bemerkbar macht.’ Letter of 17 May 1893 in Popp, Derjunge Reger, 147-148. ‘ ... ein richtiger musikalischer Brausekopf, ... den Kopf voll kühner Welterober­ ungspläne, bis er in die theoretische Schule Hugo Riemann’s wanderte und dort sah und lernte, wie—’’eins, zwei drei” zum Komponiren nöthig sei.* Heinrich Reimann, ‘Kom­ positionen von Max R e g e rAllgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 1 July 1893, 375. ‘ ... dass die guten Hoffnungen, die dieses neu sich erhebende, grosse Talent verspricht, sich erfüllen mögen!’ Ibid., 376. References to Reimann’s closing statement might wrongly imply his categorical approval of Reger. See e.g. Fritz Stein, ‘Max Reger und Karl Straube,’ in Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, 45; and Idem, ‘Der Freund und Vorkämpfer Max Regers,* 142. Max Reger, O Traurigkeit, o Herzeleid, Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 21 (1894). In April 1894, Reger published another chorale prelude, Komm, süßer Tod, in Augener’s Monthly Musical Record (1 April 1894), and it is certainly possible that Straube could have had access to the journal, especially since Heinrich Reimann was a curator for Berlin’s Royal Library at the time. In any case, there is no evidence that Straube ever performed any of these early pieces or used them in his teaching. ‘Den Manen Johann Sebastian Bachs.* Reger had sent the work to Johannes Brahms, presumably hoping for a positive assessment. Brahms replied with a terse letter in March

Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916

75.

76.

77.

78. 79.

80.

81.

82.

45

1897, saying of op. 16 only that its ‘all too bold dedication shocks me!’(‘ ... allzu kühne Widmung mich erschreckt!’). Max Reger, Briefe eines deutschen Meisters, ed. Else von Hase-Koehler (Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1928), 55. ‘Im Herbst 1896 zeigte Reimann Straube die viersätzige Suite in e-moll Op. 16 von Reger, mit dem Bemerken, dies Werk sei so schwer, daß es überhaupt nicht spielbar sei. Dieses Urteil reizte den Virtuosenehrgeiz Straubes, daß er mit eiserner Energie sich an die Bewältigung des Werkes, das ihn vor ganz neue orgeltechnische Probleme stellte, heranmachte und bereits im März 1897 brachte er als Erster das erste große Orgelwerk Regers an die Öffentlichkeit. Das Konzert fand statt in der Dreifaltigkeitskirche auf einer leider nicht ausreichenden Orgel ... Dieses Orgelkonzert bedeutete in Straubes Leben den Beginn der virtuosen Meisterschaft und zugleich—wohl kein Zufall—den Abschluß seiner Berliner Zeit.* Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 12. The singularly appropriate German term is ‘Vollgriffigkeit,’ for which no English trans­ lation exists but which well expresses Reger’s aim for sonorous effects via a succession of thick chords. See Lindner’s account of Reger’s organ improvisations at Weiden cited above. There can be little doubt that Reger developed the style from the piano, e.g. on the model of Johannes Brahms, whose works he studied assiduously during this period, but its transference to the organ presents almost insurmountable difficulties for legato performance. Reimann, ‘Noch einmal über den Vortrag,* 148-49. If Reimann did not object to these portions of op. 16 on technical grounds, he probably would have done so on stylistic ones. He argued in 1891 that the value of Bach’s Sonatas and Passacaglia was wholly pedagogical. Students were to perform them on the pedal clavichord ‘before they received admission to the organ bench’ [‘ehe sie Zutritt zur Orgelbank erhielten*]. Ibid. ‘ ... auf einer leider nicht ausreichenden Orgel.’ Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdi­ gung, 12. On the Wesel organ, see Monatsschrift für Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst 1 (1896), 211 ff.; Karl Dreimüller, ‘Karl Straubes Sauer-Orgel in Wesel,’ in Studien zur Musikge­ schichte des Rheinlandes 2, ed. Herbert Drux et al., Beiträge zur rheinischen Musikge­ schichte 52 (Cologne: Amo Volk, 1962), 55-70; and Falkenberg, Der Orgelbauer Wilhelm Sauer, 79 and 263-266. Church and organ were destroyed in 1945. ‘ ... etwas altmodische, enge Begrenzung des Manualumfanges ... *Letter of 31 August 1906 to church authorities, reproduced in Herbert Stiehl, ‘Organist und Kantor zu St. Thomas—Aus Briefen und Dokumenten des Archivs der Thomaskirche,’ in Held, ed., Karl Straube: Wirken und Wirkung, 134-137. Straube was arguing for an extension to a3. See the discussion below regarding the renovations of the St. Thomas organ as super­ vised by Straube. See bar 173 of the Phantasie über den Choral Wachet auf ruft uns die Stimme ' op. 52/2, where he asks for an f-sharp3 and g-sharp3 by way of an 8va indication in parentheses. Even here, Reger makes clear that playing an octave higher is optional, and in Straube’s own autograph copy of the piece, the direction is absent. Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 14. Significantly, Wolgast emphasizes the char­ acter rather than the number of Straube’s performances as unique. ‘Today we can hardly

46

83.

84.

85. 86.

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition imagine ... what it meant at that time to offer the public pure organ recitals, especially with such huge programs.’ [‘Wir können heute ... es kaum mehr ermessen, was es für die damalige Zeit bedeutete, mit reinen Orgelabenden, noch dazu mit solchen Riesenpro­ grammen, aufzutreten.’] Ibid., 15. In fact, Straube’s tendency to present programs made up entirely of organ music was relatively uncommon in Germany at the time. Audiences were probably more accustomed to mixed programs including vocal and other media. See Appendix 5 for a complete account. The list above includes only the most prominent composers. Precisely during this period and certainly in this connection, Reger referred to Straube as ‘the “Bülow” of the organ’ [‘ein ganz eminenter Orgelspieler - der “Bülow” der Orgel’] in a letter to Hugo Riemann of 18 March 1899. Shortly thereafter, on 5 August 1899, Reger would request of Riemann that Straube be included in the former’s Musiklexicon. See Popp, ed., Der junge Reger, 400-401 and 421. Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 40-41 passim. Hartmann, who admittedly refrains from offering a definitive answer as to the nature of Straube’s talent, argues on the basis of certain statements in the published correspondence that Straube doubted his own musical adequacy. In fairness to Hartmann, whose writings about Straube have met with emotional opposition in the last years, it must at least be said that such ques­ tions have helped balance the many strata of Straube-encomia contributing to nearly a hundred years of subjectively informed legend-making. On the other hand, Straube’s own remarks on the matter of his talent (e.g. those quoted by Hartmann from a letter of 1 March 1943 to Straube’s brother William in Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 142-143) do not forgo a certain melodramatic modesty that is difficult to take entirely seriously. Dreimüller, ‘Karl Straubes Sauer-Orgel,’ 68. The organ did not receive an electric blower motor until 1912. ‘An seiner Thomasorgel in Leipzig studierte Straube oft nächtelang ... Klangwirkungen aus ... * Karl Hasse, ‘Karl Sträube als Orgelkünstler,’ in Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, 157. Hasse was one of the earliest pupils of Straube in Leipzig (1903-1905), and his description of Straube’s practice habits probably stems from the same period. On Hasse, see further Chapter 4.

Chapter 2

Reger’s Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

The relationship between Max Reger and Karl Straube that began in 1898 is above all else the relationship between a composer and a performer. The phe­ nomenon eo ipso— a performer who, personally acquainted with a composer, goes on to establish an interpretive tradition for that composer’s music, built largely upon the authority of the acquaintance itself—is of course not unique. One might cite the relationships of Beethoven to Czerny or (for organists) of Franck to Toumemire as cogent examples. Unlike these, how­ ever, which are based on the dynamic of mentor to pupil, the case of RegerStraube is absolutely collegial. Furthermore, Beethoven and Franck were prominent keyboardists in their own right, quite capable of demonstrating their thinking via performance. By the same token, their interpreters Czerny and Toumemire were active composers. With the Reger-Straube phenom­ enon, this functional mutuality in some sense gives way to a more sharply delineated specialization. Straube was in no wise a composer, and, long before he met Reger, he had jettisoned the idea of writing what in his mind would have been at best ‘transitory music’ (‘vergängliche Musik’) in order to devote all his energies to interpretation, especially to that of Bach’s works.1 Reger’s activity was not as compartmentalized as that of Straube: he in fact vigorously promoted himself as a chamber pianist and conductor throughout his career, falling into a long tradition of performing composers uninterrupted to this day. Despite this, Reger was not the kind of organistcomposer prominent in France during the same period. It seems likely that Reger, having witnessed the unusual curiosity Straube displayed for his work and the attention Straube’s recitals drew to it, was content to leave the per­ formance of his organ music to what was already in 1900 a growing number of interested players.2

Questions and evidence Given the unique aspects of the Reger-Straube relationship, two distinct lines of inquiry have come to define most scholarly activity surrounding it: 47

48

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

(1) How did Straube play Reger? (2) To what extent did Straube influence Reger’s compositional process? The second of these questions appears to have a shorter history than the first, having gained real momentum only in the 1980s with trenchant if cursory discussions such as those by Bengt Hambraeus and Susanne Popp.3 The two questions are of course related, since the aesthetic which informed Straube’s idiosyncratic performance style was identical to that which he brougt to bear upon certain aspects of Reger’s creative process. Generally speaking, both issues have been addressed with an increasingly critical tone over the last twenty years or so, calling into question both Straube’s musical understanding of Reger and the ethics of his influence on the composer. Not surprisingly, German organists and organ scholars are responsible for the great bulk of this work, and very little research has been dedicated to anything but Reger’s organ music as it relates to Straube. That this is so undoubtedly says something important about the enduring character of what became a prominent repertory early in the cen­ tury, at least in Germany. But the net effect of this scholarship has been an exclusive or at least a very close identification of the Reger-Straube ques­ tion with organ music, and both issues articulated above will in future have to be expanded beyond the confines of the organist’s more immediate inter­ ests. Straube was, for instance, an active vocal accompanist who advocated strongly for Reger’s Lieder both in performance and in print.4 Furthermore, Straube’s influence during the compositional process extended well beyond the organ works to orchestral (e.g. the Sinfonietta op. 90), chamber (e.g. the Violin Sonata in C minor op. 139) and choral (e.g. the terminated Latin Requiem) music. Correspondence Those who have wished to probe the Reger-Straube relationship have relied upon a relatively small corpus of hard evidence on which to build their argu­ ments. The paucity of evidence is of course all the more remarkable since the events in question transpired only about a hundred years ago, but the per­ sonal habits of both men combined with the enormously destructive effects of World War II are responsible for the loss of much potentially enlighten­ ing material. First, as to correspondence and other statements by Reger and Straube: written exchanges survive only in the form of the composer’s let­ ters and postcards to his friend. Reger’s apparent habit of disposing with all but what he considered to be the most valuable correspondence— a letter from Johannes Brahms, for example, or the letters from Duke Georg II of Saxony/Meiningen—has forced research to rely, as it were, upon one side of a telephone conversation. Furthermore, the original letters to Straube were lost during the course of World War II when they were removed from Leipzig to the Carl-Hauptmann-Archiv (Schreiberhau/Riesengebirge). When

Reger ’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

49

the archive itself was evacuated, the documents were left behind and are missing to this day. Fortunately, two copies were made before the 1940s, upon which Susanne Popp’s excellent complete edition rests.5 One is a hand copy from 1922, executed with Straube’s permission under the super­ vision of Adolf Spemann. The other, typewritten copy issues directly from Straube’s estate via Fritz Stein, presumably (but not demonstrably) made by Straube himself at an undetermined date. This second version is a good deal more complete than the 1922 copy, but both take in the same number of years. In the absence of original materials, there is no way of knowing how complete the correspondence is from Reger’s side. There can be no ques­ tion, though, that a number of letters are lost: the first dates from 7 May 1901, precisely after what would be Reger’s most productive period of organ composition, embracing the large organ pieces through opp. 57 and 59.6 During the nearly sixteen-year period covered by the extant correspondence (1901-1916), Reger would compose only four major organ works, in com­ parison with the eleven big pieces he produced from 1898 through 1900.7 Also to be counted under the rubric of written evidence are the two men’s statements about each other to their friends and colleagues. Reger, who during his short lifetime produced an enormous body o f correspondence, expressed both to Straube and to others an unwavering, absolute trust in Straube’s technical and interpretive skills regarding his music.8 It proves more difficult, though, to reduce Straube’s views—which admittedly accu­ mulated over a much longer period—to simple formulae. Whereas he unquestionably regarded Reger as a significant, genial force in an organic line of development from the old masters and Bach, so too he readily dis­ cussed what he believed to be the composer’s shortcomings: an inability to express his intentions in the notation; a sometimes unchecked spontaneity tending toward musical excess; and an inordinately fluent contrapuntal abil­ ity which, without proper attention, could lend the music a stale air of rou­ tine. The critical stance in evidence here is typical of Straube’s personality as a whole. When he chose to discuss any figure—musical, literary, politi­ cal— at length, he almost never issued categorically positive judgments. And in Reger’s case, Straube’s opinions found expression in a performance tradi­ tion shaped by long years of teaching, editing, and performing, and by his influence upon the compositional process itself. Finally, Straube introduced his positive view of Reger into the public forum via a number of reviews and promotional essays in major journals of the period, many written on Reger’s direct request during the first years of the century. Some of these, like Straube’s review of Reger’s op. 40 chorale fantasies for the Monatsschrift fü r Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst, are as valuable for Straube’s opinions about music history generally as they are for his views about how Reger figures into that history.9

50

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Performance materials Straube undoubtedly owned a large collection of organ music which he used for his own performances. Already in 1928, Wolgast referred to ‘his library of organ music, which today he has given to the library of the Leipzig State Conservatory.’10 If Straube had retained any materials for himself through the 1940s, they were destroyed in the night of 3 and 4 December 1943 during the first Allied air raid on Leipzig.11Research at the library of the present-day Leipzig Hochschule für Musik und Theater has failed to tum up either any record of Straube’s donation—probably made around the time he assumed the position of Thomaskantor, but certainly before 1928—or any scores from his estate.12 Inquiry among his living pupils reveals that, although some books once owned by Straube have found their way into the hands of his acquaintances, no musical materials are forthcoming. Indeed, the disappear­ ance or destruction of Straube’s library would appear practically absolute were it not for the extremely fortunate preservation of several autograph scores (now housed at the State Library of Baden/Karlsruhe) which Reger prepared specifically for Straube’s retention. For the large organ works from op. 27 through op. 52, composed during the remarkably fecund period imme­ diately following the first meeting of composer and performer—i.e. all seven fantasies on Protestant chorales plus the Fantasy and Fugue in C minor op. 29, the First Sonata op. 33, and the Fantasy and Fugue on BACH op. 46— Reger prepared two autograph manuscripts, one for Straube and one for the engraver. In certain cases it is quite clear that Straube used the autographs for at least some of his performances. Given the complex history surround­ ing the ten works in question and the varying nature of the autographs them­ selves, it is impossible to say with certainty what the purpose of the double autograph system—if it had a defined purpose at all—really was. Further, the issue receives no illumination from the extant correspondence, which com­ mences exactly at the time Reger’s practice of preparing two manuscripts ends. However, the Straube autographs are so central to a study of the RegerStraube relationship during its early years, and the performance markings in Straube’s hand (e.g. fingerings, pedalings, and phrasing in certain pieces) constitute such unique source material, that the manuscripts and the cir­ cumstances of their creation are best examined in detail. Such study yields insight into both the specifics of Straube’s performance practice during the early years of the century and the nature of his influence upon Reger’s com­ positional process. Reviews and other written accounts o f performance Third, as to written accounts of Straube’s performances: during his years in Wesel, Straube established himself as an organist of stature, particularly in

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

51

the Rhineland and, undoubtedly as a result of Reger’s advocacy, in impor­ tant centers of southwestern Germany like Heidelberg and Munich. His election in 1902 to the prestigious post of Thomasorganist both confirmed and augmented his reputation, especially in the eastern German regions of Saxony and Thuringia. Straube’s performances began to command signifi­ cant attention in the press, so that it is possible to reconstruct—however incompletely—his repertory and performance schedule, largely via notices in the major journals of the period. Given the details of what was obviously an extremely active concert career (Appendix 5), together with the repertory Straube produced on a weekly basis in the St. Thomas Motetten series from 1903 forward (Appendix 4), it becomes undeniable that Straube developed his capacities to remarkably vast proportions.13 Equally irrefutable is the consistently—for most years even overwhelmingly—significant part played by Reger in this repertory from 1898 onward.14 Details of Straube’s per­ formance style, both positively and negatively received, are contained in reviews of his performances by reputable musicians and scholars like Arnold Schering, Theodor Kroyer, and Eugen Segnitz. Other, more extended dis­ cussions exist in the form of contemporary pamphlets (e.g. Walter Fischer’s Über die Wiedergabe der Orgel-Kompositionen Max Regers from 1910 and Gustav Robert-Tomow’s Max Reger und Karl Straube from 1907) as well as in numerous laudatory articles by Straube’s pupils both before and after 1950. Recorded sound Surprisingly enough, there exist no known recordings of Reger’s music as played by Straube. While neither Reger nor Straube appears to have made acoustic solo recordings, both men recorded organ music on rolls in the stu­ dios of the Welte firm in Freiburg i. Br. Reger played some o f his own less technically demanding pieces, whereas Straube recorded the music of Bach and Buxtehude.15 Some of the rolls have been reproduced on modem record­ ings via the use of surviving Welte instruments designed for such playback, but the original organ on which Straube and Reger played was destroyed, along with the entire Welte factory, in the Allied raids on Freiburg in Novem­ ber 1944. The resulting set of issues is complex, and whatever evidence the organ rolls might offer is called into considerable question by factors sur­ rounding the nature of the recording mechanism itself. Because details of Welte’s recording method constituted a guarded trade secret, and since all recording was carried out in the destroyed Freiburg studio, we cannot know how much information recorded on the rolls stems from the performer (the notes certainly do, although mechanical correction of wrong notes may have been possible) and how much was added by the recording engineers. For example, the extent to which the rolls reproduce legato playing as intended

52

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

by the organist is in question, since certain passages in Reger’s recordings are carried out with a legato that would be impossible in performance. Fur­ thermore, the speed of playback mechanisms (i.e. the rate at which the roll runs through the playback organ) can vary widely, so that, for example, iden­ tical rolls recorded under different circumstances in 1961 and 1986 give dif­ ferent tempi for the same work.16Also noticeable in the available recordings is a perceived asynchronization between manual and pedal voices, a practice which may or may not result from the mechanics of recording and reproduc­ tion. Finally, the playback organs themselves have stoplists not necessarily identical to that on which the roll was produced, so that stop changes and crescendi often sound unnatural.17 Still, the Welte recordings cannot be easily dismissed. Reger chose to record at least seven chorale preludes from his op. 67 {Jesus, meine Zuver­ sicht; Lobt Gott, ihr Christen alle gleich; O Welt, ich muß dich lassen; O wie selig seid ihr doch, ihr Frommen; Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten [Zu ernsten Liedern]; Wie wohl ist mir, o Freund der Seelen; M ach’s mit mir, Gott, nach deiner G ut’) as well as certain other pieces from the inci­ dental collections (from opp. 56, 59, 65, 69, 80, 85, and 92, including the well-known Benedictus op. 59/9). Many of these have been reproduced on modem recordings. Straube’s recording of Bach’s works in 1922, which admittedly might have been markedly different from his playing of Reger’s music in, say, 1900, is nevertheless instructive for his general concept of tempo rubato and and what is undeniably a very expansive notion of musi­ cal movement, ascertainable quite apart from the problems surrounding the recording mechanism outlined above.18 Organs The instruments which Straube knew from his youth through about 1918, at which time he effectively gave up the organ, played a large part in the shap­ ing of his performance style. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to think that the acoustic capabilities of certain modem organs, i.e. their much praised subtle gradations of color and dynamics, may have influenced how Reger expected his music to sound. Almost every instrument with which Straube was extensively associated during this period fell victim to the destruction of World War II.19 The notable exception is Wilhelm Sauer’s organ at St. Thomas Church/Leipzig, built in 1888, ‘pneumaticized’ in 1902, and sig­ nificantly enlarged under Straube’s supervision in 1908. After undergoing further alterations during the subsequent decades of the German Orgelbe­ wegung, the instrument has been recently almost completely restored to its 1908 condition by the present-day firm of W. Sauer (Frankfurt/Oder).20 In its present state, the St. Thomas organ is a valuable resource not least because Straube’s Reger editions from the period (i.e. those of 1912 and 1919) offer

Reger’s Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

53

registration suggestions based on its stoplist. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the 1908 renovations reveal much about Straube’s thinking during those years. With the exception of the Leipzig Conservatory organ, the St. Thomas Sauer is the instrument with which Straube had the longest working association. Here is the organ as Straube found it when he took his post at St. Thomas in January 1903 and as it appeared after the 1908 rebuild:21

Table 2.1

Leipzig: Thomaskirche. Wilhelm Sauer 1888 and 1902 (Opus 501); 1908 (Opus 1012)

(Opus 501)

(Opus 1012)

Manual I ÍC - f31

Manual ItC - a31

Prinzipal Bordun Prinzipal Flûte harmonique Viola di Gamba Gedackt Doppelflöte Gemshom

Nasard Oktave Rohrflöte Gemshom

Rauschquinte II Mixtur III ScharffV Cornett II-IV Bombarde Trompete

16’ 16’ 8’

Prinzipal Bordun Prinzipal Geigenprinzipal Flöte 8’ Viola di Gamba 8’ Gedackt 8’ Doppelflöte 8’ Flauto dolce Gemshom 8’ Quintatön Dulciana Nasard 5 1/3’ Oktave 4’ Rohrflöte 4’ 4’ Gemshom Violine Oktave 2 2/3’ + 2’ Rauschquinte II Mixtur III 2’ ScharffV 2 2/3’ Cometí II-IV 2’ Großzymbel IV Trompete 16’ Trompete 8’

16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 5 1/3’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 2’ 2 2/3’ + 2’ 2’ 2 2/3’ 2’ 3 1/5’ 16’ 8’

54

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Manual II (C - O)

Manual II (C - a3)

Salizional Gedackt Prinzipal Flûte harmonique Flöte Spitzflöte Rohrflöte

16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’

Schalmei Salizional

8’ 8’

Oktave Flauto dolce

4’ 4’

Quinte [?] Oktave Mixtur IV

2 2/3’ 2’ 2’

Cornett III

4’

Clarinette

8’

Salizional Gedackt Prinzipal Flûte harmonique Flöte Konzertflöte Rohrflöte Gedackt Schalmei Salizional Harmonika Dolce Oktave Flauto dolce Salizional Quinte Piccolo Mixtur IV Zymbel III Cornett III Tuba Clarinette

16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 2 2/3’ 2’ 2’ 2’ 4’ 8’ 8’

Manual III fC - f3. Schwell werk!

Manual III (C - a3. Schwellwerk!

Viola di Gamba Lieblich Gedackt Prinzipal Gedackt Konzertflöte

16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’

Aeoline Voix céleste

8’ 8’

Fugara Traversflöte Quinte Flautino

4’ 4’ 2 2/3’ 2’

Viola di Gamba Lieblich Gedackt Prinzipal Gedackt Spitzflöte Flûte d’amour Gemshom Viola Quintatön Aeoline Voix céleste Prästant Fugara Traversflöte Quinte Flautino

16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ [from Man. II] 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 2 2/3’ 2’

Reger’s Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

Harmonia aetheria II-III 2 2/3’ Oboe

8’

Pedal r c - f n

55

Harmonia aetheria II-III 2 2/3’ Trompette harmonique 8’ Oboe 8’ [new position] Pedal Í C - f U

Majorbaß

32’

Kontrabaß Subbaß Violon

16’ 16’ 16’

Salizetbaß

16’

Lieblich Gedackt Quintbaß

16’ 10 2/3’

Offenbaß Baßflöte Dulciana Violoncello Octave Flauto dolce Posaune Posaune Fagott Trompete Clarine

8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 32’ 16’ 16’ 8’ 4’

Majorbaß Untersatz Prinzipal Kontrabaß Subbaß Violon Gemshom Salizetbaß

32’ 32’ 16’ 16’ 16’ 16’ 16’ 16’ [new position] Lieblich Gedackt 16’ Quintbaß 10 2/3’ Prinzipal 8’ Offenbaß 8’ Baßflöte 8’ Dulciana 8’ Cello 8’ Oktave 4’ Flauto dolce 4’ Posaune 32’ Posaune 16’ Fagott 16’ Trompete 8’ Clarine 4’ All normal couplers Unteroktavkoppel II/I [= II to 1 16’] Oberoktavkoppel Pedal [= Pedal to Pedal 4’] Collective foot lever for all couplers 3 free combinations Fixed pistons for M f and Tutti Fixed pistons for Pedal Mf, F, and Tutti Rollschweller, and Swell shoe for Man. Ill

56

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Most striking about the 1908 instrument is, of course, its expanded manual compass (with a new console to accommodate it) and the generous aug­ mentation of the 8’ manual and 16’ pedal choruses. Worth noting, too, is Straube’s care to construct each division around the principal choruses. This holds especially for Manual I, where he must have known that the 1902 Rauschquinte was an amalgamation of the Quinte 2 2/3’ and Oktave 2’ from the 1889 instrument: in 1908 he added an independent Octave 2’, choosing not to dissolve the Rauschquinte. Together with the new low mixture at 3 1/5’, this made possible an unusually healthy 16’ principal chorus on Manual I, functional either independently or as a backbone to the full organ. Along these same lines, Straube added principals at 16’ and 8’ in the pedal (but no mixture equivalent to Wesel’s Cornett III). Both Manuals II and III received hearty new reeds at 8’, whereas Straube was apparently unconcerned that the organ have any manual reeds above that pitch level.22 It is interesting that Straube, who in 1906 proposed the expansion of the St. Thomas organ as a condition for his staying in Leipzig, should have argued as he did solely on the basis of size and manual compass. His letter to church authorities on 26 August 1906 spoke only o f ‘renovation and expan­ sion of the St. Thomas organ to the size of the instrument in St. Nicholas Church.’23 Doubtless he had witnessed Sauer’s 1903 renovation, expansion, and pneumaticization of St. Nicholas’ Ladegast organ to four manuals and 94 ranks (Sauer Op. 885), and it seems that Straube was playing upon the rather superficial concern for size so characteristic of the era in general.24 In fair­ ness to Straube, though, he may have been thinking of the peculiar acousti­ cal environment at St. Thomas Church. It is certainly the case today—and it seems probable that Straube would have anticipated this—that the full organ of Sauer’s 88-rank St. Thomas instrument proves more tolerable— even pleasing—in its space than that of the Ladegast-Sauer organ in its envi­ ronment. Alongside his concern for size and its correlation to the church’s prestige, Straube presented his argument for an expanded manual compass in a second letter from 31 August: In the renovations of 1902 it was unfortunately overlooked that the three manuals of the organ receive an extension from great C through a3. In its present condi­ tion, the instrument extends up only to O. This somewhat old-fashioned, narrow limitation of the manual compass makes it impossible for me to play on the organ of St. Thomas compositions of the modem French school—I mention important names like César Franck and Charles Marie Widor—and lately also of the newest German organ school. If I wish to retain my leading position among German organists, a change in the organ as noted above is for me an unqualified neces­ sity.25

Reger’s Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

57

That Straube could use—or felt he could use— an argument about the perfor­ mance of modem French organ music as a basis to renovate the St. Thomas organ probably says something important about the reception of that reper­ tory during the period. O f course, it would not have been ‘impossible’ to play Franck with manuals extending only to f3, and church authorities could have pointed out that Straube had performed Saint-Saëns, Franck, and Alkan at St. Thomas on a number of occasions prior to 1908 (see Appendices 4 and 5).26 As noted earlier, Reger’s music—to which Straube’s ‘newest German organ school’ primarily refers—would not have suffered, either, as Straube’s many performances of Reger on the 1888/1902 organ tend to confirm. It seems that Straube was thinking primarily of Widor, whose music regularly demands a compass to g3 and whose Symphonie gothique op. 70, much played by Straube, briefly requires an a-flat3. He may also have had in mind the organ at the Leipzig Conservatory, which Walcker had built in 1887 already with a manual compass to a3, or instruments like Sauer’s four-manual Berlin Cathe­ dral organ from 1904 with the same compass. But whatever his motives, the frequency of French repertory (particularly Widor) in the St. Thomas Sat­ urday afternoon concert series (Motetten, see Appendix 4) during the years following the renovations underscores Straube’s conviction that the ‘new’ organ was more suited to French music.27 Finally regarding organs of the period, it must be noted that the efficiency of the new pneumatic actions—even those of an experienced builder like Sauer—varied widely. The following observations are pertinent: (1) The preserved pneumatic action at St. Thomas/Leipzig is in my experience, as Christian Scheffler rightly reports, astoundingly precise, and it offers no impediments whatsoever to fast playing. The immediacy of sound experi­ enced by the player has as much to do with the acoustic implications atten­ dant upon the relative placement of console to case (console built into a rather compact case) as it does with Sauer’s well-built action. (2) Although Straube’s Wesel organ is no longer extant, tempo must have proven a more difficult issue there, if only because of the third manual’s mechanical action as compared to the pneumatics of the rest of the instrument. Also, Sauer’s use of the original seventeenth-century casework in Wesel and his placement of the console underneath the former Rückpositiv meant that a significant portion of the organ stood well over the organist’s head.28 (3) Other extant instruments of Sauer demonstrate the variety of situations with which con­ cert organists like Straube must have contended. To cite but three examples: for the instrument at St. Michael’s/Leipzig (1904, III/46, Op. 902), much smaller than either the St. Thomas organ or those Straube knew in Berlin and Wesel, Sauer built a separated console forward and left of the case­ work. The pneumatic action does not function with the same precision on all the divisions, so that e.g. fast passages on Manual III must be slowed to accommodate a sluggish response compared to the rest of the

58

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

organ. Sauer’s magnificent instrument for Berlin Cathedral of the same year (IV/113)—subsequently altered to conform with Orgelbewegung ideals, damaged during the bombing of Berlin on 24 May 1944, and beautifully restored in 1993 to its original condition by the present-day firm of Sauer— has a pneumatic action which, despite the distances over which it must func­ tion, is remarkably precise. Nevertheless, the negative acoustical properties of the cupolated gallery in which the case stands results in a significant per­ ceived delay in sound, effectively foiling the advantages of a precise action. Sauer’s 1909 organ for the Stadtkirche in Bad Salzungen (III/41, Opus 1025) is preserved in its original condition, responsibly maintained over the course of the century and nearly passed over altogether by Orgelbewegung reform­ ers. At the request of Duke Georg of Saxony-Meiningen, the organ was tested in 1912 by Reger, who was at the time Meiningen court music director, accompanied by Hermann Poppen. Sauer used the existing casework from 1790 to accommodate the pipework for Manual I and Pedal, and he placed two new cases, one for each of the subsidiary manuals, on either side of the original structure. Although Sauer built the console squarely into the front of the organ, the new lateral cases are recessed by several yards and thus hidden from the organist’s view, so that the sound from Manuals II and III must travel around the comers of the center case—or out into the church and back again—before the player hears it. Quite apart from the pneumatic action, which in fact functions efficiently, this layout engenders a unique acoustic situation whereby the sound of the subsidiary manuals are perceived by the player slightly later than that of Manual I and Pedal. With practice, however, none of this precludes fast tempi in the more complex passages of Reger, and Reger’s report to Duke Georg mentions only that the action functioned precisely.

Straube’s musical sense and his playing of Reger Given the nature of the evidence as described above, questions of both Straube’s performance style and his influence upon Reger’s compositional process become complex, multidimensional problems. Before focusing upon issues of influence and the implications of his role as a kind of Mitkomponist, it would be prudent to examine Straube’s musical thinking as evidenced in his playing. As with any performer and any repertory, the uniqueness of Straube’s Reger playing resulted from the adaptation of his style in univer­ sum to the particular challenges of Reger’s music. Conversely, considering Straube’s almost maniacal immersion in that repertory during precisely the period he was developing his technique, it is not unreasonable to speculate that Reger’s organ works might have contributed something substantial to Straube’s way of thinking about music in general. It is likewise a reasonable

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

59

proposition that Straube’s way of playing was not static. He did not neces­ sarily play exactly the same way in 1898 as in 1908 or 1918, and he would in any case have adapted to the demands of a wide range of instruments. Here follows, then, a discussion of what is known about Straube’s playing as it relates to issues of registration, phrasing, articulation, fingering, ped­ aling, tempo, tempo modification, and instrument type. Each issue may be approached via both its contribution to Straube’s musical vocabulary gener­ ally and its application to Reger’s music specifically. Registration Insofar as they offer something more than merely superlative praise, reviews and other written accounts can clarify certain points about Straube’s style, which during the first years of the century was perceived as new, sometimes disturbing. Those who heard him (at least those who wrote about the experi­ ence) tended consistently to single out as unusual (1) an idiosyncratic style of registration and (2) an uncommonly detailed sense of phrasing in con­ trapuntal textures. O f these two, it is Straube’s registration which gave rise to controversy, most particularly with regard to Bach and most particularly among his reviewers in Leipzig.29 Even Straube’s most ardent supporters sometimes expressed reservations about his unorthodox registrations and his related preoccupation with Affekt. His Berlin colleague Walter Fischer, for example, commented in 1906: The most striking characteristics of his Bach playing are a wise moderation with regard to dynamics and above all the subjugation of the virtuosic impulse. It may be that he has gone somewhat too far in this last respect... For example, whereas he performed the great D-major fugue [BWV 532], which Bach himself calls ‘Fuga concertato,’ with a virtuosity bordering on the incredible, he breathed into most of the other pieces (e.g. the G-minor Fantasy and Fugue [BWV 542] and the A-minor Prelude and Fugue [BWV 543], which for the most part are com­ posed in the ‘brilliant’ style) the ‘mood’ which in his opinion is contained in those pieces.30 Some reviews went as far as to say that Straube’s intense interest in tone color and the orchestral flexibility of sound actually disturbed rather than clarified the musical architecture. These kinds of comments—that Straube may have misunderstood the formal intentions of the composer—are sur­ prisingly similar to Wolfgang Stockmeier’s objections, first raised in the 1970s, to Straube’s Reger editions.31 Even more strikingly, the resulting aural impression of fragmentation (Zerstückelung) brought on by a hypersensitive registration practice is not unlike the criticisms to which Reger was unremit­ tingly subjected for the extremely sectional nature of his compositional style.

60

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Eugen Segnitz wrote in 1909, upon Straube’s first appearance as organist of the Gewandhaus: The distinguished artist’s eminent ability is sufficiently known and constantly affirmed, especially his inexhaustible art of registration. Nevertheless, in the per­ formance of Seb. Bach’s C-major Toccata, Adagio, and Fugue [BWV 564] he unquestionably presented too much of what is good and interesting. The slow middle movement for example sounded magnificent, but thoroughly un-Bachlike, completely modem. As a result of the effort to proceed from modest begin­ nings through great crescendi, the fugue appeared in part too fragmented, in part too paltry overall.32 Similarly, Curt Hermann wrote of Straube’s performance on the Leipzig Bachverein concert in March 1911: It seemed somewhat astonishing that Professor Karl Straube played the fugue of the Dorian Toccata [BWV 538] fairly slowly from the beginning, that he con­ ceived the piece weakly, and that, after a constant crescendo, he again took up the beginning dynamic halfway through, thus disturbing the unity and effect of the whole.33 And, despite whatever ‘wise moderation with regard to dynamics’ attributed to his playing by Walter Fischer, Vernon Spencer pointed out that Straube’s interpretations sometimes transgressed acceptable limits, at least for certain tastes: In registration, Herr Straube demonstrated that he is at pains to make the most of the beautiful sounds and combinations of the organ in a degree to which we are unaccustomed. In so doing he wishes to put an end to the dominant routine. Even though he does not display the high art and taste of Guilmant, we nevertheless can be quite thankful that he offers us something new. However, he appears to be not yet completely familiar with the acoustic of the church [St. Thomas/Leipzig]. In the Buxtehude, there were whole passages which from the altar one could no longer hear at all. The too frequent use of the v o i x c é l e s t e was tiresome, as well.34 O f course, there are many positive comments in the sources about Straube’s elaborate approach to registration which serve to balance the somewhat negative reception portrayed above. Beyond such very general discussions, though, it is difficult to say anything useful about Straube’s registration prac­ tice except that (1) it was remarkably colorful, (2) he regarded it as inextri­ cably bound to Affekt, and (3) he constructed it around the possibilities of the instrument at hand. It seems reasonable to assume that, for Straube, all three

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

61

points were absolute musical concerns, transcending both historical styles and national boundaries (applicable to Bach as well as Reger, to Frescobaldi and Bossi as well as Dandrieu and Guilmant). Straube’s preoccupation with stop changes and subtle gradations of color and dynamics during his years as a performer is well documented in his con­ temporary editions of Bach, Reger, and others (see Chapter 3). That he was able to accomplish such changes with any kind of grace or celerity is made the more remarkable by the fact that Straube apparently did not use regis­ trants, and that the organs he played had relatively few registration aids.35 Furthermore, if Straube employed stop changes in his performances of Reger with anything like the degree of frequency he suggests in his editions of 1912 and 1919, there is nevertheless little evidence of this in the manuscripts he used for those performances, which limit themselves almost completely to the registration indications (pitch level, occasional stop names, couplers) given by the composer.36 All of this accords well with Straube’s reputation for long hours of practice (at least after he arrived at the electrically powered instrument at St. Thomas Church) and his habit of arriving several days early at an organ on which he was to play a recital.37 An inordinate amount of time has been devoted to the issue of whether Reger intended or sanctioned Straube’s colorful treatment. In the first place, it is certain that the composer did not intend—require—complex registra­ tions. Reger proceeded in most cases with great precision regarding his auto­ graph scores, and it seems reasonable that any composer who exercised as much care over details is giving the performer all he considers essential.38 It is worth noting here that Reger, who matured in an era that was producing clean, scientific editions of Bach and others, believed he was presenting his music in the clearest possible notation, practically free of extraneous editing. This becomes particularly evident in his 1907 polemic against Hugo Riemann, in which he turned his former mentor’s charges of needless complex­ ity against him. Reger cited a passage from Riemann’s recent essay against his music: Regarding the statement ‘to avoid natural simplicity and by exaggerations of all kinds, difficulties in the notation etc.’ it must be established once and for all: HenProfessor Dr. Riemann is absolutely correct. There have existed namely for 15 years editions of the masterworks of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc. etc. which in fact are established solely on the principle ‘to avoid natural simplicity and by exaggerations of all kinds, difficulties in the notation’ etc.! Curiously enough, these editions are—by Hugo Riemann.39 O f course, Reger could well have turned the same criticism toward Straube regarding the latter’s 1912 edition of pieces from op. 59, extremely detailed in terms of registration, manual division, and tempi. On the contrary, Reger

62

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

supported Straube’s editorial efforts, probably not least because of Straube’s prominent, influential position among German organists at the time.40 To this may be added the fact that Straube’s attitude toward registration, at least in modem repertories like Liszt and Reger, seems to have been almost univer­ sally well-received. However complex it appeared on paper and however much practice it necessitated, the aural impression given by Straube’s col­ orful registrations was one of moderation and simplicity. On several occa­ sions, Reger praised Straube’s playing in letters, and there can be little doubt that Reger was pleased with his friend’s harnessing of the ‘modem’ organ’s potential. In 1910, Walter Fischer distinguished Straube’s approach to regis­ tration from that of organists who wished to exploit color for its own sake. O f Straube’s performance for the Westphalian Organists’ Guild on 9 May 1910 in Dortmund, Fischer remarked: [T]he guiding principle in the art of registering Reger is simplicity. We have admired this in the playing of the distinguished Leipzig Professor Karl Straube. How simply and grandly was everything presented! How completely free from pretentious display and so-called registration tricks! How completely clear was the complicated fugue in the Fantasy on ‘Hallelujah, Gott zu loben bleibe meine Seelenfreud’ [op. 52/3]! We know that we can divide all audiences of organ music into two groups: one which wants to hear real music and another which only wants to enjoy sonorous colors and certain character stops. The second group is by far the larger and fills the churches... But only the organist who subordinates all the sonorous magic of his instrument in favor of the higher musical ideal is capable of playing Reger, and only he will find his way quickly and easily in the choice of stops. Basically, Reger’s registration is very simple. A tender stringbased pianissimo registration (Ged. 8’, Aeoline 8’, Viola 4’ and corresponding pedal), a penetrating 8’ stop, a sonorous principal-based mezzoforte, a well-made crescendo to full organ, and a few ‘marcato’ stops in fortissimo passages will in essence deal with the whole of Reger.41 Straube’s playing amounted to a kind of orchestration, worked out on the basis of the instrument at hand. Fischer, whose sentiments are representative of many other commentators, pointed out that Straube placed the choice of stops in the service of the ‘higher musical ideal,’ understood as transparency of sound and clarity of form. Gustav Robert-Tomow, too, believed that Straube’s registration practice issued from a concern for musical intelligibility, particularly in complicated contrapuntal textures: And one may emphasize as a particular virtue that he, in contrast to many organ­ ists, wisely avoids encumbering fugues or passages of important polyphony with dark stops or even with reeds to the point that the voice leading is impenetrable to

Reger's Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

63

the ear. In this he is wholly intent upon approximating at the organ the capability of an orchestra—a tendency to which namely Reger’s compositions give encour­ agement.42 If Robert-Tomow meant simply that Reger’s scores encourage an orchestral treatment, Straube would undoubtedly have agreed. But if he also intended to imply that Reger’s music (i.e. his notation) suggests a clear treatment, Straube would have taken issue. At the end of his life, Straube confirmed his belief that any successful performance of Reger’s organ music would be based on the organist’s ability to interpret the notation, in points o f tempo as well as dynamics, with moderation. For Straube, the notion of prudent inter­ pretation was of enormous import in Reger playing, since he believed that the composer’s own way of writing music tended to commend precisely the kind of intemperate performance Reger did not intend. Concerning Reger’s op. 73, he wrote to Hans Klotz: I can only advise you to differentiate expression and timbre according to the characteristics of the instrument, without lapsing into pedantry or excessive sub­ jectivity ... In all his performance directives, dynamic and agogic, Reger aban­ doned himself to such excess that his indications have given rise more nearly to confusion than clarity among non-thinking people. That which he wanted to achieve with his Adagissimi, Vivacissimi, molto agitato, piu molto agitato, Andante (quasi Allegro vivace), stets nie hervortretend, with the whole scale from pppp through ffif, is an impassioned performance. The use of express train speeds for tempi or high-pressure siren screams is a crime against his art. The same applies to the opposite extremes of snail-paced inertia and whispering registra­ tions that no one can hear.43 Straube’s apparent rejection of high wind pressures in this context may reflect his experience with seventeenth- and eighteenth-century organs, and he might not have mentioned it in 1900. However, his conviction that Reger was unable to transfer his ideas clearly to paper was one of the chief motivat­ ing forces behind both his own editorial activity and his sometimes signifi­ cant influence upon Reger during composition itself. Straube points out a central issue here, namely that Reger’s use of a dynamic range from pppp to ffff, while it directly impacts registration, does not mean the organist should strive for extremes twice those of the normal scale pp to ffi Indeed, Sauer’s St. Thomas organ would have been largely incapable of this either before or after 1908. Reger calls merely for the division of the accepted range into more subtle gradations. That Straube took issue with the notation as such does not imply that he disagreed with Reger’s intentions, only that he rec­ ognized the potential of the notation to create confusion among those less

64

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

aquainted with Reger himself. To Straube’s credit, nearly a century of Reger performance has tended to justify his fears. Directly related to Straube’s choice of stops is his attitude toward mood and Affekt. Straube documented the rhetorical use of organ color in his 1913 edition of Bach’s Orgelwerke Band //, and in 1904 he had justified his highly subjective approach to old music in the preface to his Alte Meister des Orgel­ spiels. But in 1913, explanations and suggestions in prose invade the musi­ cal material itself, with more or less extensive discussions of each work via footnotes to the musical text. Straube attempted to grasp the essence of the music by identifying it with the style of one kind of orchestra or another (in the C-major Praeludium BWV 545 it is ‘the brilliance and splendor of the Meistersinger orchestra’;44 in the G-major Praeludium BWV 541 ‘lives the charming magic of rococo art’45), or by seizing upon Romantic nature imag­ ery (‘The [A-major] Praeludium [BWV 536] whispers the magic of quiet spring nights. Sounds, still half in a dream state, open the gently gliding dance ... ’ The harmonic progressions must be like the tones of the Aeolian harp, without provocation, without betraying their instrument’ (Novalis).’).46 Straube placed the choice of stops—in the latter work he even called it ‘instrumentation’ (Instrumentierung)—in the service of these concepts. Inter­ estingly enough, he never repeated the practice of prose explanation on which he relied in 1913, although he certainly could have done so with respect to Reger’s music. Reger’s chorale fantasies, especially, constitute for any imaginative organist an arrant invitation for the construction of subjec­ tive programs. The composer’s inclusion of the chorale texts in the scores, and his rhetorical suggestions for ‘dark’ (‘dunkle’) and ‘light’ (‘lichte’) reg­ istrations in, for example, the Fantasies of op. 52, admonish the performer to precisely this kind of tone painting.47And it is not too much to say that, with Sauer’s best instruments, a clever organist could realize Reger’s ideas with a virtuosity approaching that of Mahler’s or Strauss’ programmatic orchestra­ tions. Some of the features of Reger’s scores— inclusion of text, dark versus light registration, the occasional use of stop names alongside pitch level indi­ cations—might plausibly reflect Straube’s ideas and practices. Although this is not demonstrable based on the existing evidence, one might bear in mind the following points. (1) In 1895, Straube’s mentor Reimann had published his Phantasie über den Choral ‘Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern 'op. 25, comprised—as were some of Reger’s later works in the form— of an intro­ duction, a series of chorale variations with text underlay, and a fugue, the climax of which united the subject with the final statement of the chorale. In a letter to Hans Klotz of 28 April 1944, Straube pointed out that Reger adopted the form of the chorale fantasy from Reimann’s piece, a copy of which Reimann had sent to Reger in Wiesbaden, presumably well before the latter’s meeting with Straube.48 It is impossible to know if Reger included

Reger’s Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

65

text underlay in his own chorale fantasies as a result of seeing Reimann’s work, or if he did so on Straube’s direct suggestion. In any case, he had not included any kind of underlay in his Te deum op. 7/2 in 1892.49 (2) Given Straube’s propensity for detailed, programmatic registrations vis-àvis Reger’s oft-stated favoritism toward ‘absolute’ musical ideals, it is pos­ sible (again, not demonstrable) that the rhetorical juxtaposition of ‘light’ and ‘dark’ registrations is based in Straube’s thinking, even though the autograph indications are in Reger’s hand. (3) Reger’s inclusion of pitch level indica­ tions is o f course unique neither to his music nor to his practice after 1898. He had used such directives generously in the early works of opp. 7 and 16 and the chorale preludes of 1893-94, and his employment of them per se after 1898 has nothing to do with Straube.50 Furthermore, if the presence of specific stop names in certain works from Reger’s second Weiden period stem from Straube’s own practice, then it is difficult to understand why the nomenclature does not accord with the specifications of Straube’s Sauer organ in Wesel.51 The employment of couplers constitutes one of the most striking differ­ ences between Reger’s works before 1898 and those of his unusually produc­ tive Weiden years. Aside from a single instance at the end of the Passacaglia of op. 16,52 Reger dispensed with coupler indications in his organ music up to op. 27. By contrast, with the Fantasy on the Chorale ‘E in ’feste Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27 and the subsequent large works through op. 57, he supplied more or less detailed instructions for the use of manual and pedal couplers. Moreover, the published version of op. 27 includes Reger’s clarifi­ cation, presumably valid for his organ music as a whole, o f Organo pleno as ‘full organ with all couplers.’53 The sudden onset of such detail with op. 27 encourages the notion that certain aspects of Reger’s scores reflect Straube’s practice, at least at the turn of the century. Reger, it appears, was not pre­ disposed to include anything approaching consistently worked out coupler indications, and his smaller works from the same and subsequent periods, on which Straube’s direct influence is neither demonstrable nor likely, employ them only erratically.54 By the same token—and this should be kept in mind by anyone wishing to speculate further—Reger’s later organ works over which Straube presumably had little if any influence (e.g. the Variations and Fugue on an Original Theme in F-sharp minor op. 73) request couplers only sparingly, whereas certain pieces on which Straube had an overwhelmingly great impact (e.g. the Fantasy and Fugue in D minor op. 135b) forgo them entirely. Finally, under the broad rubric of registration may be included the issue of manual changes. The kind of clarity so often mentioned in conjunction with Straube’s registrations was in large part effected by an approach to manual change no less detailed than his treatment of phrasing, choice of stops, and other aspects of performance. Whereas his Reger editions advise many more

66

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

changes of manual than the composer suggests, Straube included in his per­ forming autographs nothing more than occasional reminders of the manual changes already prescribed (e.g. his copy of op. 29), with the single excep­ tion of the Wachet a u f fugue op. 52/2.55 Nevertheless, it was presumably his concern for the flexible distribution and orchestration of sound which led Straube to develop one of the more interesting characteristics of his tech­ nique, namely the playing of two voices on two manuals with one hand, hence making possible the use of three manuals simultaneously and the lift­ ing out of a middle voice in contrapuntal textures. Students and critics alike mention Straube’s unusual ability in this regard,56 and he evidently wished to illustrate the technique in his 1904 portrait at the former console of Sauer’s St. Thomas organ:

Figure 2.1

K arl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig, 1904 (1908?)

Straube regularly required this kind of ‘three-handed’ playing in his editions, and its inclusion by Reger in two passages from his organ music suggest Straube’s direct influence. The first, relatively brief instance occurs in bar 50 of the Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Freu dich sehr, o meine Seele ’ op. 30, where Reger asks that beats three and four in the alto voice be played ‘if possible’ [‘womöglich’] on Manual I while the right hand plays Manual III,

Reger's Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

67

the left hand Manual II. The passage is easily mastered on German organs like those of Sauer, which position Manual I as the bottom of three claviers. The second, more significant example is found in Reger’s last organ work, the Fantasy and Fugue in D minor op. 135b. The existence of both pertinent correspondence and the heavily edited galley proofs of op. 135b have dem­ onstrated Straube’s egregiously extensive involvement in the composition of the work. It has been reasonably established, for example, that Straube, together with Reger, examined at least one set of proofs on 11 April 1916, at which time the composer carried out significant revisions regarding content and performance directives.57 Figure 2.2 shows a portion of the double fugue as galley proof page 14. Here, Reger curtailed the first fugue via a newly-composed half-cadence on an E-major triad, pasting this and the beginning of the second fugue over the now superfluous bars at the bottom of the page. What is now the final entrance of the first fugue’s subject (in the tenor of the middle system’s third bar) was originally moved to the stronger Manual I along with—as practical considerations dictate—the baritone voice. In the revision, Reger wrote for the baritone line the same indication as for the upper two voices (‘sempre II. Man.’), placing only the tenor voice on Manual I through the end of the subject, three beats before the end of the phrase. This new arrangement, while not impossible to perform, presents significant technical difficulties and forces the player to divide the tenor between the inside fingers of both hands. O f course, the subject is rendered absolutely clearly through the cre­ scendo Reger prescribes, and there can be little doubt that such elaborate orchestration stems from Straube’s suggestions.58 Phrasing and articulation Straube’s unusually detailed sense of phrasing and his ability to demonstrate aurally a work’s contrapuntal integrity constituted, according to him, a con­ scious refinement of and advancement beyond the style of his Berlin mentor Heinrich Reimann.59 Descriptions of his playing consistently attest to this phenomenon, regarded as a unique feature of Straube’s style. Once again, Walter Fischer pursued the topic for several lines: His carefully detailed phrasing, which neglects not even the most insignificant sixteenth-note figure in the secondary accompanimental voices, constitutes in my estimation the secret of Straube’s art. Most organ composers, and most organ teachers of the old school, have sinned greatly in the area of phrasing; indeed, one must say that relatively few of today’s organist generation sufficiently master this area of technique, which is so very important precisely for the somewhat thick sound of the organ ... By means of Straube’s phrasing, the music becomes clear, precise, plastic and understandable to everyone.60

68

Reger: Fantasy and Fugue in D m inor op. 135b Gaily proof p. 14 (fugue mm. 33-45) with pasteovers and revisions in Reger’s hand

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Figure 2.2

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

69

In 1910, Fischer took the opportunity offered him by the Dortmund Reger Festival to expand upon this point with specific regard to Reger’s music. To Straube’s phrasing practice he attributed historical as well as musical signifi­ cance: To these principal requirements [of good Reger playing] is joined the concern for good phrasing. We organists really have not phrased for very long. Let us bear in mind that the deficient phrasing indications of so important an organ composer as Joseph Rheinberger originated only lately! The incomparable Karl Straube has been a pioneer in this respect. In his Liszt arrangements and in his collections of works by old masters he has given us all that we need. Reger’s phrasing marks are no less excellent. The effect of a Reger organ piece is essentially dependent upon the care with which the interpreter follows the example of the composer. We church musicians, with our blurred church acoustics, cannot do enough in this regard. The best phrasing will often be of little effect in a bad acoustic. But sins of neglect in the area of phrasing avenge themselves bitterly. Here, too, practical experiments are more valuable than score study. One should play Reger’s pieces a few days before the concert for a friend who sits in the church beneath, follow­ ing the notes. Then we will soon see how often playing lacking in plasticity has its cause in insufficient phrasing.61 It is clear that in his concept of phrasing, Fischer found lacking both its notation (Rheinberger does not provide enough of it) and its performance (contemporary organists are only beginning to do it). It is clear, too, that he regarded Reger’s own phrasing as sufficient and unambiguous information for the performer,62 and that the desired aural effect was often compromised by the live acoustics of German churches (ausgleichende Kirchenakustik). Beyond these rather basic observations, though, lie several important ques­ tions without clear answers. Was Straube’s way of phrasing perceived as new because of its attention to independent voices merely, or because organists tended to ignore phrasing entirely? If the latter, was such a practice due to the fact that certain composers included few if any phrasing indications in their scores as compared to the elaborate editions of men like Straube and Riemann (Bach and other alte Meister via the scholarly complete editions, Liszt, Rheinberger as noted, even Reger)? What was the nature of Straube’s ‘musi­ cal logic and aesthetic instinct’63 on which his choice of phrasing depended? Finally and most important, what was the nature of Straube’s (or, for that matter, Reger’s own) phrasing at the keyboard, and what was its relationship to articulation? As to the first two questions, Fischer in fact seems to say that organists neglected phrasing entirely, and this accords well with the mindless ‘tram­ pling down’ (Heruntertrampeln) of Bach’s music which Heinrich Reimann had opposed with such vehemence in the 1890s as antithetical to the spirit

70

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

of the music.64 Furthermore, Reimann and Straube after him were probably correct in identifying uninteresting, unexpressive performances with failed attempts to realize illusive notions of objectivity. And Straube, who seems always to have been acutely aware of the subjective nature of his own per­ formance decisions, would never have said that the ultimate value of his phrasing practice lay in the pedantry of its details, but rather in the basic premise from which he proceeded: namely the realization—widely accepted today—that the score is anything but an objective document. As to the question of ‘musical logic and aesthetic instinct,’ Straube com­ mented in 1950: In my edition ‘Old Masters of Organ Playing’ from 1904 and in the collection ‘Chorale Preludes of Old Masters’ published in 1907,1 tried to set down in more specific performance indications how I articulated on the organ. With these I offered directives which did not derive from dry considerations at a desk. Rather, they were an expression of an originally spontaneous feeling held in check by an attentive intellect. I did not wish the organist to follow these suggestions to the letter in a pedantic way. They were intended always to leave him the free­ dom to express his own musical sense. ffl] If in my new edition of the second volume of Bach’s organ works, which appeared in 1913 with Peters, the articula­ tion principle is carried out still more consistently, then this is the direct effect of my intense occupation with Bach’s vocal style ... In [Bach’s] vocal pieces, I found that the articulation was for the most part already indicated by the indi­ vidual relationship of each musical line to the text. How Bach here drew legato slurs over a syllable covering several notes, how he effected upbeat lines and syn­ copated accents through word division, this allowed me to draw various conclu­ sions about the possibilities of articulation in Bach’s organ polyphony.65 It would appear from Straube’s explanation that he regarded articulation as synonymous with phrasing, or at least very closely related to it. He also seems to say that, roughly between 1907 and 1913, he refined his articula­ tion (phrasing?) to reflect the primacy of upbeat figures, at least in Bach’s music. It is demonstrable that Straube relied on upbeat formations in his performances before 1907, and he had had extended opportunity to see the concept at work in Reger’s own phrasing directives. If during the 1880s and 1890s Straube had been largely unacquainted with the phrasing concepts of Hugo Riemann as expounded in both practical (various editions of keyboard music) and theoretical (Lehrbuch der musikalischen Phrasierung, 1884; and numerous essays) venues, he most certainly would have learned of them from Riemann’s pupil Reger, who in turn had convincingly assimilated Rie­ mann’s principles into his own compositional style.66 Indeed, it is difficult to skirt the question of Riemann’s influence on Straube, either through Reger after 1898 or personally after 1903.67

Reger’s Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

71

In his brief study of Straube’s performance markings in his autograph copy of the Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme’ op. 52/2, Hermann Busch rightly points out that phrasing and articulation appear to have been one of Straube’s chief concerns,68 and this observation should be extended to the Fantasies opp. 27 and 29, and especially to the First Sonata op. 33. As Busch notes, too, a thoroughgoing report of all Straube’s markings (phrasing and otherwise) in his personal scores, and an evaluation of the resulting discrepancies with the publisher’s autographs, must await the tremendous effort required to produce a good critical edition.69 Apart from issues of influence (see below), the evidence in Straube’s Reger autographs harbors tremendous potential for practical insight into the performer’s working methods and musical thought. Moreover, such study proves rewarding not least due to the colorful character of the documents themselves. As is well known, Reger composed in black ink, later superim­ posing performance directives in red ink. Presumably reflecting visual con­ cerns of a purely practical nature, Straube used a rather thick blue crayon pencil for his own markings, sometimes in conjunction with lead pencil.70 Here follow examples of Straube’s own phrasing from opp. 27, 29, and 52/2. Straube’s pedal phrasing in Figure 2.3, probably suggested by the diffi­ cult passage in m. 21, follows the descending pattern from b to the G on the downbeat of m. 23. If he had continued, he probably would have phrased from the g in m. 23 to the D in m. 24. By the time Straube edited op. 27 in 1938, he had extended the slur beginning in m. 21 backward to D. In Figure 2.4, Straube appears to have had two opinions about the shape of the op. 29 fugue subject (the published version offers no suggestion). One version suggests an upbeat to the second full measure consisting o f three sixteenth-notes (cl, c2, gl), whereas the alternative, denoted by Straube with a hash mark through Reger’s beaming, calls for a two-note upbeat to the same bar. O f course, this latter construct seems more musically convincing, since it affirms the rhythmic cell Reger sets up at the subject’s head: i f C. Note too Straube’s wish that the sixteenth-note melisma be lightly articu­ lated. The lead pencil notation (Straube’s?) of ‘a)’ at appearances of sub­ jects and answers is used in alternation with ‘d)’ denoting a quasi-chromatic fourth, apparently reflecting some kind of motivic analysis (cf. Figure 2.5; during the course of the piece, ‘b)’ and ‘c)’ are also assigned recurring motives). In Figure 2.5, Straube makes clear for himself what he believes to be the structure of the sixteenth-note melismas. As would Riemann, Straube sees J771J771JTnf instead of JTOJOTJTO/~ in bars 60-61 and 63-64. He undoubt­ edly would have treated the pedal figuration in the same manner.

72

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Figure 2.3

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Ein*feste Burg ist unser G ott’ op. 27. Straube autograph, mm. 20-26

Figure 2.4

Reger: Fantasy and Fugue in C minor op. 29 Straube autograph, mm. 40-44 (fugue subject and answer)

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

Figure 2.5

73

Reger: Fantasy and Fugue in C minor op. 29 Straube autograph, mm. 59-64

Unlike the C-minor subject, the Wachet a u f fugue subject appears with Reger’s own Riemann-like phrasing in Figure 2.6. Revealing his penchant for detail, Straube included in pencil a more defined approach to the last of Reger’s three phrases, consisting of two smaller upbeat figures followed by the melismatic sequence articulated staccato or (more likely) leggiero. If the organist executes this in a subtle manner, Straube’s phrasing has the effect of highlighting the fall to e-sharp 1 in the second full bar, admittedly the only really interesting musical event in the subject. Straube regarded Reger’s op. 52/2 as one of the composer’s most successful works, and evidence from

74

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

his pupils reveals that he continued to concern himself with the proper artic­ ulation of its fugue subject throughout his career as both teacher and per­ former.71

Figure 2.6

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stim m e’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 80-83 (fugue subject)

With the quasi-canonic entrance alia quinta at bar 132 shown in Figure 2.7, Reger’s red-ink performance indications cease in Straube’s autograph. With a pencil, Straube phrased the tenor voice in the spirit of the subject from which it is obviously derived. Oddly enough, Reger’s own phrasing in the engraver’s copy shown here is slightly more detailed than Straube’s version in Figure 2.7:

Straube’s penciled reminder to play the pedal one octave lower than written until the downbeat of bar 134 must stem, as Busch notes, from the narrow pedal compass of the Wesel organ.72 In Figure 2.8, Straube once again reminded himself of the subject’s phras­ ing in op. 52/2. Significantly, he did not reproduce his own, more detailed version shown in Figure 2.6, rather opting for Reger’s original. As would be expected, Reger used this phrasing in his own finished copy for the engraver. This rather simple example may point to a valuable insight: once Straube had defined the fugue subject in terms of phrasing and articulation, he did not necessarily carry it out strictly. The kind of detail so often mentioned in con­ nection with Straube’s performances does not imply pedantry.

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

Figure 2.7

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stim m e’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 131-136

Figure 2.8

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stim m e’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 154-159

75

76

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

No work offers so complex an example of Straube’s phrasing practice in Reger or invites so much speculation into questions of influence as does the First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33. Straube’s copy is not only replete with performance markings, but it also documents—literally—an extended con­ versation between composer and performer as to final details of the piece. Here follow but three pertinent examples from that document. Figure 2.9 shows the beginning of the fugai exposition in the first movement of op. 33. Presumably Reger had not included phrasing for the fugue subject (it was not his normal practice to do so) when Straube first saw the manuscript, as Straube’s remark under the first two bars (Phrasierungsbogen!, i.e. ‘phras­ ing slur!’) suggests. If this in fact constituted a request for more detail, Reger heeded it in red ink through the first three entrances of the theme, and Straube continued in pencil with the fourth entry. Even more striking than Straube’s influence on the score per se is Reger’s particular response here. Reger conceived the subject in three units, but rather than end the second slur with the dl in bar 2 and thereby effect an upbeat gesture into bar 3 as would seem logical, he was careful to join the two phrases while preserving their distinctiveness. He did this by employ­ ing an element from Hugo Riemann’s phrasing vocabulary, namely two slurs that come together in a point. The meaning of the notation is theoretically unambiguous, and Straube presumably would have understood it. Reger, like Riemann, would have intended that the last note of bar 2 (c-sharpl), while in fact the end of a musical unit, be held for its entire value before proceeding to the next note. Riemann’s explanation appears in several passages from his writings, for example in his Vademecum der Phrasierung: The frequent occurrence of a phrase’s final note which must be held its full value led to the use o f ... slurs which run together in a point '-V/'*’'“ or (with longer notes) of the tenuto mark over the last note:

r which indicates in no way an accent, rather only the full holding out of the note despite the end of the slur.73 If it is the case that adjoined slurs indicate legato performance (i.e. of phrases not defined by articulation), then by implication separated slurs suggest interrupted sound (i.e. phrases defined at least by articulation). O f course, this would only apply here to the extent Reger or, more to the point, Straube chose to abide dogmatically by Riemann’s theory, and it would in any case prove dangerous to apply the rule with any kind of consistency, since Reger used Riemann’s notational vocabulary only sporadically.

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

Figure 2.9

77

Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Phantasie mm. 14-23

Furthermore, Straube had certainly developed a refined sense of phrasing and a differentiated approach to articulation by the time Reger began com­ posing organ music in earnest, and there is every reason to believe that his notion of phrasing extended well beyond even the most subtle gradations of articulation to questions of tempo, dynamics, and so on. What can be said with certainty is that for Straube, phrasing slurs such as those regularly employed by Reger implied neither legato performance of the notes under them (see for instance his articulation markings in op. 52/2, Figure 2.6) nor articulated performance of the notes separated by them.74 One might note,

78

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

too, that Straube regularly employed two kinds of phrasing marks in his Reger scores, the one consisting of common slurs over or under a musical line (seen here in the last two bars), the other of slurs beginning or terminat­ ing with vertical hash marks which invade the line itself (seen here in the first bar of the final system; cf. also Figure 2.4). Whereas the former does not necessarily suggest an articulation— at least not visually—the latter, more emphatic mark does seem to do so. Figure 2.10 shows a portion of the final crescendo in the first movement of op. 33, with Straube’s copious phrasing in pencil. Reger finds his way to the pedal point at the bottom of the page via a two-bar sequence in the middle system, the motivic material for which he borrows from the first three notes of the fugue subject presented earlier (Figure 2.9: a descending second fol­ lowed by a descending third). Given the clearly derivative nature of the line and its position within the beat structure of the bar, one might expect Straube to conceive it with the same downbeat phrasing Reger gives in the fugue exposition:

Rather, he relies on the less likely concept of upbeat groupings, impacting significantly the aural perception of the motive.75 Admittedly, what Straube lost with respect to motivic integrity he gained in terms of dynamic drive toward the F-sharp minor 6/4 chord on the bottom system, which of course had been the ultimate goal of Reger’s ‘Più mosso’ from four bars previous. It seems plausible that the character of Straube’s notation might reflect his performance concept. With each grouping of three beats leading to the bottom system, the beginning of the slur seems to reach further into the musi­ cal material, culminating in the hash mark-plus-slur showing the upbeat to the f f f pedal point. This tends to suggest a progressively more pronounced articulation as the climax nears, which does in fact yield a musically con­ vincing result. Finally from op. 33, Figure 2.11 shows the first two and a half variations of what became, at Straube’s handwritten suggestion, the closing Passaca­ glia. In Straube’s copy, Reger chose simply to commence with the first varia­ tion, instructing to ‘play first in the bass alone ppp’ [‘Im Baß einmal ppp solo vorausspielen’]. Obviously, Straube was very concerned about the phrasing and articulation of the bass, and the kinds of markings he added here— two large blue slurs dividing the theme in halves, shorter blue slurs showing upbeat formations, hash marks in blue crayon and lead pencil— continue through the first seven variations (five manuscript pages). Straube revealed

Reger’s Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

Figure 2.10

79

Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Phantasie mm. 37-42

here a phrasing concept operative on different levels. He probably distin­ guished the two halves of the theme by means of caesurae, those at the end of the theme affording more space than those in the middle (note that the hash marks at the end of eight-bar sequences are significantly longer than those after four bars). The shorter slurs probably do not imply articulation, rather merely a concept of musical motion based on the upbeat, to which Straube, as demonstrated above, was inclined.76

80

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Figure 2.11

Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Passacaglia beginning

Fingering and pedaling What we know of Straube’s fingering and pedaling, both of which nec­ essarily intersect issues of phrasing and articulation, comes to us through his rather irregular inclusion of such indications in his editions and in his autograph copies of Reger’s pieces.77 O f the three Reger editions issued by Straube, only his 1938 version of op. 27 contains fingering and pedaling:

Reger’s Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

81

the publications from 1912 (op. 59/7-9) and 1919 (preludes and fugues from opp. 59, 65, 80, and 85) restrict themselves to registration, articulation, tempi, and so on. With regard to his Reger autographs, Straube entered fin­ gering only with the greatest infrequency. It appears he had little need to remind himself of fingerings either in practice or in performance, a situation parallel to the absence of elaborate registration indications in those scores. In fact, fingering appears in only three brief instances: in the Passacaglia of the First Sonata op. 33 and in two passages from the Fantasy on the Cho­ rale 'Wachet a u f’op. 52/2. Hermann Busch has discussed the more interest­ ing of the two examples in op. 52/2 (the descending triplet thirds of mm. 59-61, ‘Quasi Allegro vivace assai’).78 Concerning the Passacaglia op. 33/3, Straube enters fingering for the right hand in bars 127 and 128 (the sixteenthand thirty-second-note figures that initiate variation 16) as shown in Figure 2.12. Such fingering indicates only that Straube was intent upon an efficient (legato? leggiero?) performance of the manual figuration. Straube’s pedaling marks occur with greater frequency by far than his fin­ gerings. Occasionally, different solutions are presented for the same passage, making evident a progression in his thinking. Figure 2.3 above exemplifies such a situation in the Fantasy on the Chorale 'Ein ’f este Burg ’op. 27. There, Straube seems initially to have managed the difficult ascending pedal line at the end of bar 21 entirely with alternate toes. At some point, though, he opted to reduce awkward movement by grouping the first three notes of the ascent (D/toe - E/heel - F sharp/toe).79 However, the original solution is indicative of Straube’s tendency, at least during the first years of the century when pre­ sumably he entered his markings, to prefer alternating toes to more elaborate heel-toe arrangements so espoused by the French. It is of course possible that Straube later absorbed a more extensive and consistent heel-toe tech­ nique into his playing and that this was in part due to his experience with the modem French school of Dupré and others.80 Figure 2.10, too, shows how Straube managed the pedal triplets in the first movement of the Sonata op. 33 with a combination of alternate toes and heel-toe pedaling. Here follow some additional examples from Straube’s Reger scores. Figures 2.13, 2.15, and 2.17 present solutions in which Straube changed his mind in order to inte­ grate the use of the heel. From these and other examples, though, it proves difficult to isolate any consistent characteristics of his technique. Certain dif­ ficult bars where one might expect pedaling marks often receive none at all, whereas less problematic passages are sometimes subjected to unnecessarily thorough treatment. Tempo and tempo modification Clarity was a characteristic of Straube’s playing almost unanimously acknowledged by his sharpest critics and his most ardent supporters alike,

82

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Figure 2.12

Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Passacaglia mm. 120-128

a remarkable accomplishment considering the instruments of the period and their potential for obscuring musical detail. Straube’s concern for clarity seems to have given rise to a sustained dislike for extreme tempi, particularly fast ones.*1 His conservative stance toward tempo (the ‘locomotive speeds’ and ‘snail-paced inertia’ against which Straube warned Klotz in 1944) was noted early on in his performance career, especially with respect to the apparent disparity between his solutions and the hyperbolic printed direc­ tives of Reger. Already by 1904 Rudolf Louis could write of Straube’s ability to produce satisfying results with moderate tempi, even in Reger’s difficult op. 57:

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

Figure 2.13

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Ein ’feste Burg ist unser G ott’ op. 27 Straube autograph, mm. 116-117

Figure 2.14

Reger: Fantasy and Fugue in C minor op. 29 Straube autograph, mm. 134-136

83

84

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Figure 2.15

Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Passacaglia mm. 97-98

Figure 2.16

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wie schön leucht’t uns der Morgenstern ’ op. 40/1 Straube autograph, mm. 39-40

Figure 2.17

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale (Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 96-97

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

Figure 2.18

85

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale W achet a u f ruft uns die Stim m e9op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 123-125

Of the great Symphonie Fantasy and Fugue op. 57 is to be said above all that it came out incomparably clearer and more distinctly than in Basel at last year’s composer’s conference ... Here, Straube’s virtuosity celebrated its greatest tri­ umph. Of course, he did not play everything in the right tempo (or, better said, not in the i n d i c a t e d tempo; since Reger’s well-known penchant for small note values often can be misleading, falsifying the intentions of the composer)—and an aural check of the performance with respect to note-true accuracy is often completely impossible with this music. But he offered a thoroughly astounding accomplishment. It was very pleasant that Herr Straube appears to have become much calmer and clearer. Only in the fugue did that nervousness sometimes become apparent which in the past frequently detracted so perceptibly from the pure pleasure of Straube’s high art.82 And in 1905, his Berlin colleague Walter Fischer referred the question of tempo in Reger’s Fantasy and Fugue on BACH op. 46 entirely to the author­ ity of Straube, whom he credited as having ‘not only introduced Reger’s organ music [in Germany], but also [having] established through his unsur­ passable art a standard by which its interpretation can be measured.’83 As they offer an unusually detailed documentation of his concept, Straube’s remarks as cited by Fischer are reproduced here in full: Reger supplies no metronome markings in the fantasy, limiting himself here to suggestions of tempo like Grave, Andante, Vivace etc. Nevertheless, the correct choice of tempo in this fantasy is a problem and, like the battle over tempo in Bach’s organ works, will remain a point of contention so long as it is played. I therefore believe I am acting in the interest of many when at this point I cite a few passages from a letter of Karl Straube, who addresses this point. Straube writes: ‘Metronomization of an artwork is never a sufficient means to its realization. The

86

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

interpreter [lit. “reproducer”] creates the organic line of the architecture in the moment of performance. Particularly with Reger, the most extreme subjectivity in shaping is the essential factor for the performing artist. The basic requirement for all Reger playing is e x t r e m e tempo rubato. In certain cases a broader tempo is perhaps preferable to an all too fast one. The BACH Fantasy and Fugue requires a rash increase in tempo. On page 5 one finds in the first bar [m. 10] the remark “quasi Adagissimo.” This i s v e r y m u c h broader than the basic tempo [Grave]. With the “poco a poco stringendo” the tempo increases again to that of the beginning. Page 5 [m. 12] Più andante J' = 92. Page 7 8 [sic; mm. 19-27] J' = 112. Page 9 first score, third bar [m. 30] (first half) very slowly; suspend the b-minor chord. Vivace page 9 [m. 30 beat 3] = 132. Più vivace [m. 37] J' = 144. Hold back somewhat on page 11, second score, beat 2 (b-flat 6 chord) [sic; m. 39, beat 2], then again drive forward up to the doubled scales in thirds [m. 42, beat 3 fif.]. Page 13 chordal passages considerably slower [m. 47 ff.]. Perform page 13 third score [m. 48-49 beat 2] very broadly. Vivace assai [m. 49] as fast as p o s s i b l e . Page 15 first score [m. 53] second half of the bar, b-flat major 6/4 chord somewhat more broadly. Second score [m. 54] the original Vivace tempo through the prescribed Adagio [penultimate m. 55].’M Straube’s tendency ‘in certain cases’ to prefer slower tempi over faster ones is doubtless based in both the tonal characteristics of organs from the period and the nature of Reger’s harmonic language itself. Tempo was, for him, in some sense a function of registration, at least insofar as the weighty full organ of Sauer tends to obscure dense, harmonically complex passages. He probably recommended a ‘considerably slower’ tempo at bar 47 of the BACH fantasy, for example, because the thick chords played organo pleno sounded unclear to him and because he wished to emphasize the climactic nature of the passage. Still, Straube did not shy away altogether from fast playing ( = 144 at bar 37 is hardly conservative), but he certainly recog­ nized the fact that Reger’s chromatically saturated music, based as it is in rapid harmonic rhythm on the level of sixteenth- and thirty-second-notes, tends to sound fast even at a relatively calm quarter-note pulse. Further­ more, Reger’s frequent division of the beat into the smallest values, like his division of the dynamic range into a scale from f f f f to pppp, constituted an intensification of normal notational practice, and it resulted in a hypersophisticated Notenbild to which performers might easily react by choosing excessive tempi (or excessive dynamics). Perhaps at Straube’s urging, Reger began to qualify his directives with the Latin ‘quasi,’ probably denoting not so much ‘approximately’ (though in certain cases semantically possible) as ‘like’ (i.e. ‘seemingly but not actually’). The difference between what is really occurring and what the listener perceives is certainly meant, for example, in directives like ‘Più andante (quasi vivace)’ (op. 46, bar 12) or ‘a tempo (quasi un poco più mosso)’ (op. 73, first variation).

Reger*s Music and Straube *s Musicianship, 1898-1918

87

Fischer would iterate his remarks on the subjective nature of tempo choice in his lecture on Reger playing to the Westphalian Organists’ Guild in 1910, again appealing to the authority of Straube: A correctly chosen basic tempo is of course of the greatest importance for a rhyth­ mically gripping performance. If we thereupon for a moment consider Reger’s works, we quickly come upon a cardinal error in Reger playing: that of all too rashly chosen tempi. Almost everyone who begins to study Reger lapses into this mistake. The music presses so powerfully forwards, Reger’s tempo indica­ tions are often wrongly interpreted, a tiresome rushing in fugue playing disturbs Reger’s music just as it does Bach’s—no wonder that the tempo is often over­ heated. In general, one will not go wrong if one plays a bit slower than the musi­ cal feeling suggests. A holding back—not a great one—is always in the interest of plasticity on the organ. Also, the choice of tempo is something so subjective that one could almost believe that all metronome markings, even those of the com­ poser, are not binding. One person plays a piece slowly better, another the same piece more quickly. We also do not know in what state of mind the composer notated his metronome indications. Had he in the following days conceived his metronome marks under different physiological or psychological influence, the numbers would have perhaps come out differently. I cite a footnote in Reger’s BACH fugue [op. 46]: ‘The indicated metronomization is merely an approximate suggestion of the gradual increase in tempo.’ That gives pause for thought. And in fact, apart from general tempi that crystallize in words like ‘Grave,’ ‘Andante,’ ‘Moderato,’ and ‘Allegro,’ the possibility of a justified tempo modification is very large. The interpreter does well to act completely subjectively in this regard. With Karl Straube I discussed once the C-major fugue from the Monologen [op. 63]. At the beginning stands Manual II, mf, con moto. With a pencil, Straube changed the ‘Manual II’ to ‘Manual III,’ the ‘m f to ‘pp,’ and the ‘con moto’ to ‘moderato molto.’ He remarked, ‘Even the composer does not have an objective stance toward his work. The interpreter creates the organic line of the architecture in the moment of performance.’ We therefore maintain: metronome indications are only general suggestions as to the correct tempo, but they are not binding for the player. It is much better that the organist become ardently engrossed in the spirit of the piece, often experimenting with individual passages in different tempi. We spend so much time trying out registrations. Let us now try just as zealously to arrive at the right tempo. Of course, there are places in Reger that cannot be played rapidly enough (e.g. the scale passages in the BACH fantasy). But where the polyphonic web becomes more complex and rich, as a rule it is better to play too slowly than too quickly.85 By 1910, Fischer perceived that tempo choice was a problem among per­ formers of Reger’s music and that Straube’s solutions were exemplary, even though they did not necessarily honor Reger’s own indications. And the

88

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

question of whether Reger would himself have sacrificed clarity in order to convey the kind of unbridled Sturm und Drang his music in fact often sug­ gests (‘Vivacissimo ed agitato assai e molto espressivo’ at the onset of the Symphonic Fantasy and Fugue op. 57) is ultimately not as interesting as the fact that, already in the first decade of the new century, the new repertory was making inroads with organists and reviewers alike precisely in Straube’s versions.86 Indeed, negative criticism of Straube’s playing apparently tended not to focus upon his tempo choices, whether slow or fast, and even if Paul Riesenfeld’s frequently cited description of Straube’s 1913 premiere per­ formance of Reger’s Introduction, Passacaglia, and Fugue in E minor op. 127 (‘ ... forty continuous minutes of experimental music ... ’) is an accu­ rate timing, this is intended more as a commentary on Reger’s music than Straube’s performance of it.87 Although the question of Walter Fischer’s ‘correctly chosen basic tempo’ seems not to have been a point of controversy for his listeners, Straube’s exaggerated use of rubato and the attendant perceived lack of a steady tempo certainly were. An anonymous critic for the Neue Zeitschrift wrote concern­ ing Straube’s performance of Bach’s F-major Toccata BWV 540, for exam­ ple, that he ‘here and there even transgress[ed] the limit of what is allowable in the stretching and shortening of parts of the measure (the so-called agogic treatment, per se not only allowable, but even necessary).’88Along the same lines is Armin Seidl’s description of Straube’s concert with the Nürnberg Philharmonic (in January 1912?): The [Liszt] BACH fugue admittedly seemed to me more clearly structured in the performance of Professor [Ludwig] Meier [recte: Maier] from Munich a few weeks ago, despite the crudity of his playing, than in Straube’s more interesting individual manner. At any rate, in the same category is to be reckoned also the strong unsteadiness between organ and orchestra in the Händel concerto [op. 4/4],89 All of this stands in stark opposition to the kind of strict rhythmic precision demanded by Straube himself in his 1913 edition of, say, Bach’s Fantasy in G minor BWV 542.90 Straube appears to have been aware of the problem at an early date, as his pupil and colleague Fritz Stein relates: ... the towering master of the organ, who at that time [ca. 1904-1906, the period of Stein’s study] already enjoyed an international reputation, was in those difficult years often plagued by self-torment, by doubts about his primary musical talent, by the validity of his Bach conception and interpretation ... More than he let on, Straube allowed himself to be attacked by the criticism of the Leipzig Beckmess­ ers, which he later dismissed with cheerful indifference, and he took the naggers more seriously than they deserved ... [10 I give but one example of this: in his

Reger's Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

89

striving for the most plastic shaping possible of Bach’s polyphony by the most careful nuancing of every line, he had unwittingly accustomed himself to a wide­ spread rubato, which not unjustifiably gave rise to stylistic criticism. At the time one could, for instance, hear at the Conservatory, ‘Were you at Straube’s Bach recital last evening? He can’t even play a short phrase in time!’ The fact of his unrhythmic playing could not be contested, and I fought long with the decision to alert Straube dutifully to this. When I did get up the courage in a private moment with him, he was at first very struck by this information, having been unconscious of his rhythmic freedom. But far from taking it badly, he thanked me for my ‘friendly service,’ policed his playing with the metronome, and—characteristic of his iron self-discipline—from that day on he counted aloud for months when practicing until he had himself completely under control rhythmically and the critical voices had to withdraw.91 Stein’s claim that Straube put an end to such criticism is of course mislead­ ing, and his interesting account is embedded in an essay belonging to that body of panegyric to which most received images of Straube are indebted (self-doubt, ‘iron self-discipline,’ a readily modified performance style). Nevertheless, the passage is striking in its claim that Straube’s excessive rubato was a by-product of his attention to the independence of voices in contrapuntal music. And, given what we know of his consuming penchant for detail and his attitudes toward registration and phrasing, it in fact seems quite possible that Straube tended to sacrifice steady forward motion, how­ ever unconsciously, in a zealous attempt to clarify complicated polyphonic textures. That such clarification was necessary on German organs of the period stands beyond all doubt, but Straube’s ability to realize transparent textures by a consistently independent treatment of lines may have engen­ dered the kind of unsteadiness for which he is criticized. Reger’s contrapun­ tal organ music presumably would have received the same treatment. And in Reger’s case, that treatment ran the risk of particularly grave consequences, since the forward motion so necessary to the unification of his seemingly fragmented musical style might easily have fallen victim to Straube’s good intentions. As with certain other aspects of his playing, Straube’s brand of tempo rubato was subject to neither categorically negative nor categorically pos­ itive criticism. Gustav Robert-Tomow, for example, said of Straube that ‘namely with no movement of the swell shades is achieved a dynamic—not, say, a rhythmic!— effect by an almost unnoticeable delay or acceleration of the touch.’92 Although Robert-Tomow counted it as ‘a genuine Straube sub­ tlety,’93 the relationship between dynamics and tempo modification is in fact one of the most prominent elements of Hugo Riemann’s phrasing theory, and Reger himself recognized its legitimacy via the oft-cited footnote in his Fan­ tasy on the Chorale ‘Freu dich sehr, o meine Seele ’ op. 30.94

90

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Finally with regard to issues of tempo and tempo modification, only in a few cases is it clear that Straube’s attitude to tempo directly influenced Reger’s own directives.95 Nevertheless, Straube must have felt free to inter­ pret and augment those directives in his own performances, even in works over the composition of which he demonstrably wielded significant influ­ ence. A documented example from Straube’s performance scores appears in the Passacaglia of the First Sonata op. 33, where at the end of the four­ teenth variation (m. 120) he wrote ‘ritenuto’ followed by ‘Un poco più tran­ quillo’ for the subsequent variation, which in turn constitutes a decrescendo from practically the frill organ to pianissimo. At the onset of variation 16 (m. 127) Straube notated ‘Tempo I.’96 His marks are shown in Figure 2.12 above. Straube’s modification, intended to enhance the effect of the prescribed decrescendo in variation 15 and the sudden return to j f f in variation 16, does not appear in the published version, but the previously mentioned Riemannesque alliance between dynamics (including registration) and tempo is clearly operative in Straube’s markings here. Instrument type During his relatively short-lived career as a performing organist, Straube practiced and played an enormous amount of music on the Wilhelm Sauer organs o f Wesel and Leipzig. Sauer’s tonal concept, which amounted to something like a German adaptation of Cavaillé-Coll’s language, was of course very influential for Straube’s own ideas about what an organ ought to sound like and how it ought to operate, at least during the period Reger was composing his music. And Sauer’s remarkable success at constructing large stoplists which produced the illusion of seamless crescendi and decrescendi (witness the restored instruments of Leipzig and Berlin) certainly would have made Reger’s consistent demands for fluid dynamics— or at least what seem to be his consistent demands for fluid dynamics—appear more reason­ able. Still, a very active performing schedule both within and outside of Ger­ many presented Straube with the task of adapting himself to a variety of instruments, the specifications of which did not necessarily afford him the advantages of the organs he played on a regular basis. Although Straube held to his conviction that a quasi-orchestral Übergangsdynamik as conceived by Sauer offered the best means of realizing repertories from Buxtehude to Reger, we cannot know to what extent he may or may not have transferred his ideals to organs not built to accommodate them. The early Straube pupil Karl Hasse, though, claims that [f]or out-of-town organ recitals, Straube was in the habit of working several days, often a whole week on the concerned organ in order to do justice to all its pos­ sibilities and to the acoustic of the room. On every organ he shaped anew the works he had to perform.97

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

91

The outstanding example of Straube’s adaptability to other kinds of organs— outstanding because it had two very important historical consequences— is, as it always has been in the literature, his performance on 14 June 1903 for the thirty-ninth Composer’s Assembly of the International German Music Society in Basel.98 Straube played Reger’s opp. 27 and 57 on the 1855 Fried­ rich Haas organ in the Basel Münster, which, according to the Reger-friendly critic Otto Lessmann, ‘however beautiful in its individual character stops and powerful in its fullness of sound, seems to lack the very modem techni­ cal aids that Reger requires.’99 Since the instrument’s specifications are not included in any previous discussion of Straube’s performance on it, they are given here.100

Table 2.2

Basel (Schweiz): Münster. Friedrich Haas 1855

Manual IIICC - ß . Schwellwerk')

Manual I (C - f3i Prinzipal Bordun Oktave Viola di Gamba Gemshom Bordun Flauto Quinte Oktave Gemshom Hohlflöte Quinte Waldflöte Comet V Mixtur V Fagotto Trompete

16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 5 1/3’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 2 2/3’ 2’ 16’ [?] 2’ 16’ 8’

(First department) Lieblichgedackt Spitzflöte Harmonika Vox humana Spitzflöte Dolcissimo Quinte Flautino Physharmonika Physharmonika

16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 2 2/3’ 2’ 16’ 8’

(Second department) Flauto traverso Stillgedackt Vox humana Flûte d’amour

8’ 8’ 8’ 4’

Manual IV (C - ß V Pedal ('compass?')

Manual II (C - ß ) Quintaden Prinzipal Viola d’amore

16’ 8’ 8’

Untersatz Oktavbass Violonbass

32’ 16’ 16’

92

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Dolce Salicional Bordun Oktave Fugara Flauto traverso Kleingedackt Quinte Oktave Comet V Mixtur IV Fagott-Klarinette

8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 2 2/3’ 2’ 8’ 2’ 8’

Subbass Quinte Oktavbass Violoncello Flöte Quintflöte Oktave Posaune Trompete Clarine

16’ 10 2/3’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 5 1/3’ 4’ 16’ 8’ 4’

Foot coupler II/I Foot coupler II/Ped. and I/Ped. Calcant bell Swell shoe for Manual III Swell shoe for Physharmonika Collective piston for pedal stops, ‘whereby the strongest of the same may be silenced when the pedal should give only a soft tone.’ [‘ ... wodurch die stärksten derselben zum Schweigen gebracht werden, wenn das Pedal nur einen schwachen Ton geben soll.’] Collective pistons of the same nature for Manual I and Manual II Tremulants for Manual II and Manual III ‘with double ventils’ [‘mit dop­ pelten Ventilen’]. ♦Manual IV ‘contains the stops of Manual Ill’s second department, which may be separated from Manual III by a piston, thereby only playable from Manual IV. The sound of all stops on Manuals III and IV can be brought to swell and diminish by an ingenious mechanism (echo boxes).’ [‘ ... enthält die Stimmen der zweiten Abteilung des dritten Manuals, welche durch einen Registerzug sich von demselben trennen lassen und dann nur noch auf dem vierten Manuale spielbar sind. Der Ton sämtlicher Stimmen des dritten und vierten Manuals kann durch einen sinnreichen Mechanis­ mus zum Anwachsen und Abnehmen gebracht werden (Echokasten).’] The most immediate consequence of Straube’s 1903 performance on the Haas organ was, of course, the composition of Reger’s Variations and Fugue on an Original Theme in F-sharp minor op. 73, with its dedication ‘to Karl Straube in remembrance of 14 June 1903.” 01 Straube explained to Hans Klotz in 1944: In Basel I then asked Max Reger to write for me an organ work without reference to Protestant chorales, in order that I would have a piece not bound to the Church

Reger’s Music and Straube's Musicianship, 1898-1918

93

for my programs in predominantly Catholic cities. I suggested to him the form of variations and fugue on a theme of his invention. That is the origin of op. 73 and the solution to the puzzle of the dedication.102 The second result was Straube’s publication in 1938 of Reger’s op. 27, arranged to accommodate terraced dynamics on instruments more nearly conforming to Baroque ideals, or to what Straube and others believed in 1938 to be Baroque ideals. Significantly, Straube there argued for the legiti­ macy of performing Reger on non-orchestrally oriented organs, and he based that argument not only on his observation that he had successfully done so in Basel in 1903, but also on the fact that Reger had demonstrated his approval via the dedication of op. 73. From the 1938 Preface: This edition of Max Reger’s Organ Fantasia on the chorale ‘Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott’ is justified in its departure from the original marks of expression by the fact that the composer first heard this early work of his played in a similar manner at the German-Swiss Musicians’ Congress, 1903, on the old organ of the cathedral at Basel which had then not been rebuilt. His consent to this interpreta­ tion of the dynamic marks and to the few alterations in the text was not only often given verbally, but also in written form, in the dedication of his F-sharp minor Variations on an original theme (Op. 73) to him who was at that time the inter­ preter of his Op. 27. [U This new edition is an attempt to prove that Reger’s organ compositions can be played on an instrument which belongs to the tradition of the classical period of organ-building, but which has absolutely no capacity for pro­ ducing tone-colours taken from the orchestra of romantic music, and influenced by the abundance of dynamic possibilities which such an orchestra possesses.103 Straube stated that the dedication of op. 73 is tantamount to Reger’s approval of what must have been an unusual performance in 1903, and by extension, of his 1938 edition. Such language derives its peremptory tone, as Straube no doubt intended, from his authority as Reger’s close personal acquaintance, and the 1938 publication may be seen in context of a larger campaign to rescue Reger’s music in the face of changing musical ideals among organists. But Straube’s statement seems to contradict his later explanation to Klotz (Did Reger dedicate op. 73 to Straube because he was particularly enthusi­ astic about the Basel performance or because Straube requested the work and suggested its form?); furthermore, his implication that the Basel organ ‘belongs to the tradition of the classical period of organ-building’ is some­ what misleading.104 Furthermore, if Reger had wished to show approval for a quasi-classical performance of his organ music, it is difficult to understand why he would have done so by composing what would become his most ‘non-classical’ organ work.105 On the other hand, it is equally difficult to see how Straube’s edition has much to do with classical standards either: he

94

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

reckons with four free combinations, Walze, and the entire mechanical appa­ ratus of what was still in 1938 a decidedly non-historical approach to organ design, and which the Basel organ itself did not possess.106 Despite the com­ plex of unresolvable issues it engenders, Straube’s argument is extremely important in that it was invoked well after his death not only to justify the musical legitimacy of an ill-defined ‘classical’ performance practice for Reger’s organ music, but also to demonstrate the composer’s de facto approval of such a practice.107 Finally, given the specifications of the Basel instrument as it existed in 1903 and the assumptions of Straube’s edition of some thirty-five years later, it is improbable that the latter could document even remotely the character of the performance on which Straube based the bulk of his argument. Surely one of the most problematic aspects of the various instruments Straube played was the inclusion on most of them of a cylindrical cre­ scendo device operable by the foot—variously termed Rollschweller, Walze, General-Crescendo— the purpose of which was to activate gradually all the stops of the organ so as to effect a smooth crescendo and vice versa. If the organist chose to use it—and Straube certainly did—the registration of a crescendo was predetermined by the organ builder, and, since it was hardly practical to change the order of stops, the anatomy of a crescendo was identi­ cal for any piece performed on a particular organ.108 It is important to real­ ize that Reger, unlike certain other composers of the period (e.g. Straube’s mentor Reimann) never specifically suggested the use of such a device in his music, and Straube presumably would not have refrained from performing Reger’s works on organs that lacked one: his Basel performance in 1903 is a case in point. Furthermore, organ builders were at liberty to construct their register crescendi so that stops entered either one at a time or in groups of two or more. Whereas certain builders of the period (e.g. Voit, Rühlmann) tended to supply crescendi based on the entrance of single stops, Wilhelm Sauer opted in most cases—especially in larger instruments like those of Wesel, Berlin, and Leipzig— for a register crescendo in groups of stops.109 Neither the existence of this distinction nor Sauer’s particular solutions can reasonably be brought to bear upon Straube’s own aesthetic preferences. How a Walze-regulated crescendo sounded in Reger’s music (or in anyone else’s music, for that matter) was dependent upon the organ builder’s skill at constructing a smooth progression of stops and upon the performer’s skill at regulating that progression, but not upon the organist’s choice of registration per se. O f course, a sensitive organist would not rely wholly or even predominantly upon a register crescendo to effect stop changes, particularly when those changes had more to do with simple manipulation of tone color than with progressive crescendi. And if his editions are any indication, Straube seems to have employed the Walze in a comparatively reserved way.

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

95

Insofar as the original instruments and their Walze sequences are still intact, or insofar as those organs which were altered over the course of the century have been restored, it is possible to study the way organists like Straube necessarily effected crescendi during the period Reger was compos­ ing his music. In his 1891 essay on the performance of Bach’s organ works, Heinrich Reimann posited a two-manual organ of sixteen stops as the mini­ mal disposition (no mixtures or reeds) for ‘an artistically justified perfor­ mance’ of that repertory.110 The Rollschweller would operate, according to him, in the following sequence of seventeen cumulative stages:

Table 2.3

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Heinrich Reimann: theoretical construction of a register crescendo

Coupler Oberwerk in swell box (II) / Hauptwerk (I) P. Subbaß 16’ + II. Gedakt 8’ II. Dolcissimo 4’ II. Salicional 8’ I. Rohrflöte 4 ’ Coupler Oberwerk (II) / Pedal (P) I. Harmonische Flöte 8’ II. Geigenprinzipal 8’ I. Prinzipal 8’ P. Prinzipalbaß 8’ II. Fugara 4’ Coupler Hauptwerk (I) / Pedal (P) I. Gamba 8’ II. Flageolet 2’ P. Violon 16’ I. Oktave 4’ I. Quinte 2 2/3’ + Superoktave 2’

It is important to notice here that Reimann does not have all the stops of Manual II enter before all the stops of Manual I, rather in irregular alterna­ tion as might be conducive to a smooth crescendo. Likewise, the sequence does not compartmentalize by pitch level: 8’ and 4’ stops enter in turn from the beginning. Reimann does not activate pedal couplers until the sixth and twelfth stages of the sequence, whereas certain instruments would have acti­ vated them from the beginning. Alongside the hypothetical Walze of Straube’s mentor Reimann might be placed the similar but more generalized prescription formulated by Reger’s mentor Hugo Riemann in his Katechismus der Orgel, appearing in 1888:

96

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

To speak first of the manual stops: a weak 8’ flute stop can be strengthened by the addition of one, two, or three soft flute stops, also at the 8-foot level. Only then would be added the Principal 8’, then Octave 4’, then Bourdon or Gedackt 16’. A Quinte 2 2/3’ (belonging to the Principal 8’) brings a further intensification, then an 8-foot reed, then an Octave 2’; all this mixed where possible with fur­ ther 8- and 4-foot flute stops. Finally comes a mixture, then Principal 16’ and Trompete 16’ with all other available stops, [f) With this one would have a fortis­ simo, which may be intensified as one likes by coupling with Manual II, accord­ ing to whether one has drawn only a few, several, or all the stops of that division. Above all one must take care that no gaps occur in the pitch levels, so that e.g. an 8’ is not coupled with a 2’ without the mediating 4’; the same with 16’ and 4’ or even 2’ without the mediating 8’ or 8’ and 4’. Of course, the composer may expressly intend certain effects in solo playing. ([Wilhelm Adam Valentin] Volckmar specifies Bourdon 16’ with Flöte 4’ in his Phantasie [d-moll] op. 215.) fl|] Just as in the manual, 8-foot tone constitutes the foundation, and a combination of stops without 8’ produces only exotic [‘ganz wunderliche’] tonal effects, so in the pedal the 16’ may never be completely absent. Of course, it cannot be used alone, rather one must combine the 16’ with one or two 8-foot stops, whereby the sound of the 16’ is validated [‘zur Geltung kommt’] ... Gradations of volume are achieved in the pedal according to the same principle as in the manual, with the difference that one begins in the pedal not with 8’, but rather with 16’, then adding 8’, then 4’, 2’, 32’, and the attending stops [‘Hilfstimmen’]. The lowest stops 16’ and 32’ derive stability only when they are combined with higher foun­ dation stops at 8’ and 4’.111 Unlike Reimann’s Walze, and removed from the principle of the mechanical register crescendo in general, Riemann speaks here of a registration practice based more squarely upon individual divisions of the organ: one brings about a crescendo by registering separately on independent manuals, then coupling them. This procedure, whereby the modification of dynamics relies heavily upon the drawing and retiring of couplers, is in fact often specified by Reger in his scores, and it produces entirely convincing results on Sauer’s instru­ ments. It is worth noting, too, that both Reger’s and Straube’s practice occa­ sionally contradicts Riemann’s more conservative admonitions.112 The theoretical discussions offered by Reimann and Riemann help supple­ ment available evidence about the construction of actual crescendo devices which survive in either written or actual form. The register crescendo of twenty-three stages for the three-manual, thirty-seven stop E. F. Walcker instrument (1887) at the Leipzig Conservatory as specified in the original contract is reproduced in Table 4.1. The instrument was rebuilt in 1909 by Sauer’s firm, but the original organ was the one Straube found when he came to the Conservatory in 1907. The character of that crescendo preserves the basic points shown by Reimann (order of the sequence based wholly on

Reger’s Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

97

dynamic gradation, not on hierarchical order of divisions or pitch level) with the addition of reeds and mixtures, the latter generally following the former (cf. Riemann above).113 Similarly, Sauer’s Walze in Bad Salzungen draws from all divisions in alternation, but it postpones the activation of manual and pedal reeds until the final stage.114

Table 2.4

Bad Salzungen (Thüringen): Ev.-luth. Stadtkirche Wilhelm Sauer 1909 (Opus 1025), composition of the Walze

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

III. Aeoline 8’, P. Subbass 16’, III/I II. Salicional 8’, III/II, II/I I. Rohrflöte 8’ III. Soloflöte 8’, P. Gedackt 8’ I. Gemshom 8’, II. Gedackt 8’ II. Concertflöte 8’, P. Dulciana 16’, III. Quintatön 8’ I. Flûte 8’, III. Femflöte 4’ III. Geigenprincipal 8’, II. Traversflöte 4’, P. Violon 16’ I. Gamba 8’, I. Rohrflöte 4 ’, III/P III. Fugara 4’, II. Principal 8’, P. Cello 8’ I. Principal 8’, II. Praestant 4’, P. Principal 16’ III. Schalmei 8’, II. Piccolo 2’ I. Octave 4’, III. Lieblich Gedackt 16’ I. Rauschquinte 2 2/3’ 2’, II. Gedackt 16’, III. Flautino 2’, P. Octave 8’, II/P 15. I. Cornett 3-4fach, I. Bourdon 16’, II. Mixtur 4fach 16. P.Quintbass 10 2/3’,1/P 17. II. Oboe 8’, I. Trompete 8’, P. Posaune 16’

Other examples from the relatively sparse pool of instruments preserved might serve further to clarify the nature of register crescendi during the period, and some have already been the subject of published studies.115

Issues of influence A final question surrounding the Reger-Straube relationship has to do with the difficult issue of influence: what is the nature of Straube’s influence on Reger? As noted earlier, this question has a shorter history than ones related to issues of performance style, and its exploration has earned Straube something of a notorious reputation in recent decades. Quite apart from whether Straube may have misunderstood Reger’s architectural intentions and whether he may have betrayed this misunderstanding in, say, his 1912

98

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

edition of pieces from op. 59, the issue of Straube as Mitkomponist will be unavoidable for anyone attempting a critical edition of Reger’s music. Both Straube’s supporters and detractors have tended to cast the circumstances of his involvement in extreme terms, some of which have evolved into stereo­ typical notions (the careful, critical intellect of the performer as counterbal­ ance to the essentially impulsive mind of the composer), others of which have digressed into inapplicable hypotheticals (If Straube had not brought his influence to bear, a particular work would have looked thus and so, which in turn would have been more faithful to Reger’s own intentions.). Still, the resulting set of issues is complex, extending far beyond the relatively lim­ ited scope of Reger’s organ works. If Straube’s impact upon Reger is ever to be comprehensively analyzed, that analysis will have to proceed on a caseby-case basis over hundreds of situations and musical passages arising in widely varying circumstances. A few of those situations, involving perfor­ mance indications in the organ works, have already been examined above, and Bengt Hambraeus does not go too far in saying that, in a certain sense, some of Reger’s pieces appeared originally in Straube’s ‘edition.’116 Whatever complexity arises by engaging questions about the practical effects of Straube’s influence (What changes did Reger make in his scores because of Straube, and when in the compositional process did he carry them out?) is significantly augmented when one addresses the psychologi­ cal dynamic behind it. Rainer Cadenbach, for example, has explored what seems to have been for Reger a deeply imbedded inferiority complex deriv­ ing from his upbringing in provincial Bavaria.117Recognition o f this personal characteristic goes far in explaining Reger’s tendency to view himself in almost bellicose opposition to the surrounding professional establishment even when such a stance appears unwarranted.118 It likewise proves helpful when considering his relationship to a clearly opinionated, intellectually inclined Prussian organist who at the time of their meeting in 1898 was expe­ riencing far greater success as a performer than Reger was as a composer. Reger’s vulnerability in the presence of a strong personality is underscored, too, by the fact that Straube’s influence manifested itself most strongly in the periods immediately following two of the composer’s three nervous break­ downs, in the spring of 1898 (followed by the Weiden organ works opp. 27-59) and in February 1914 (followed by the incomplete Latin Requiem, the Violin Sonata in C minor op. 139, and the organ Fantasy and Fugue in D minor op. 135b). From Straube’s side, it is instructive to observe that his tendency to offer counsel to creative individuals by no means restricted itself to Reger or even to composers, although Straube himself admitted late in life that Reger was the first such case.119 One might further argue that Straube’s proclivity for advice-giving was encouraged if not driven by his welldeveloped opinions in musical, literary, and political arenas; that the pro­ nounced nature of this tendency was related to his own, self-confessed

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918

99

inadequacies in creative endeavors (composing, writing); and that his counsel was well-received by, say, Reger not least because of his prominent position as performer and pedagogue. (Would Reger have acceded to advice regarding the structure or style of specific works, especially over a long period, had it come from a befriended organist of lesser stature, for example Hans von Ohlendorff in Hamburg?) Although Straube’s influence extended to several aspects of Reger’s work,120 by far the most obvious issue—at least among the organ pieces—is that of cuts in the musical material. Straube’s own liking for succinctness and his conviction that Reger was given to excess of all kinds seems to have led to a number of truncations in Reger’s scores, the most radical of which among the organ works appear in the Introduction, Passacaglia, and Fugue in E minor op. 127 and the Fantasy and Fugue in D minor op. 135b. O f the two, it is op. 135b which demonstrates an unquestionably clear link to Straube.121 In her work from 1986 and 1988,122 Susanne Popp offers an excellent summary of the circumstances surrounding the inception of Reger’s major organ works with respect to Straube. Because of the lack of evidence— and particularly because of the one-sided correspondence between the two friends which itself is not complete— it is possible only infrequently to venture beyond the realm of conjecture and inference. On the one extreme lie those organ works which almost certainly remained free of Straube’s direct input from the time of composition to publication (the incidental collections, the Symphonic Fantasy and Fugue op. 57, the Second Sonata in D minor op. 60, the Variations and Fugue on an Original Theme in F-sharp minor op. 73), and on the other lie those which bear the undeni­ able marks of his influence (the First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33, the Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wie schön leucht’t uns der Morgenstern ’op. 40/1, the Fantasy and Fugue in D minor op. 135b).123 Between the two extremes exists an enormous grey area into which many other works fall, and, even in those pieces which unquestionably attest to Straube’s involvement, it is in no case possible to separate completely Reger’s ideas from those of Straube. O f those major works which undoubtedly owe much in their final forms to Straube’s influence, the three-movement First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 offers a unique case, not only because Straube’s autograph obviously served as a working copy for his and Reger’s ideas, but also because of the addition of five variations in the closing Passacaglia (‘composed additionally for Herr Karl Straube’),124 the only instance in Reger’s music where, apparently at Straube’s suggestion, material is augmented rather than replaced (e.g. op. 40/1) or cut (e.g. op. 135b). The purpose of the additional five variations, which Reger inserted just before the final statement and which amount to a steady crescendo from the pppp of the original pen­ ultimate variation to the j f f of the final one, is almost certainly to bridge smoothly what in Reger’s original design was a dramatic leap in dynamic.

100 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Curiously enough, this revision did not carry into the publisher’s autograph: it seems rather to have been the exclusive right of Straube to perform the F-sharp minor Passacaglia in its lengthened form.125 Straube believed that Reger’s Sonata op. 33 constituted a turning point in his development as an organ composer,126 and it is not surprising that his autograph copy offers both an unusual number of performance markings and many revisions undertaken at his prompting. Susanne Popp has rightly pointed out that Straube’s copy, with both men’s remarks in the margins and between the staves, reveals beyond doubt that Reger and Straube exchanged manuscripts by mail during the years immediately following their first meet­ ing.127 Straube himself mentioned this practice with respect to the Fantasy op. 40/1, but his op. 33 autograph offers a particularly stark example. Figure 2.9 above has already been discussed in terms of Straube’s request for phras­ ing indications in the first movement of op. 33. It also shows what appears to be his appeal for ‘somewhat more fluid counterpoint’ [‘etwas flüssigere Contrapuncte’] in bars 19 and 20, a counsel Reger seems to have ignored entirely. Without attempting a systematic analysis, the figures below include some of the more important commentary that demonstrates the character of the collaborative relationship. Figure 2.19 shows the original bars 4 through 8 of the Intermezzo. Reger replaced bars 7 and 8 with a pasteover in response to Straube’s comment, ‘Very labored!’ [‘Sehr gequält!’], and he (or Straube?) appears to have worked out the new material in pencil at bar 15, where the same music returns in slightly altered form. Figure 2.20 shows Straube’s autograph from the bottom of page 10 through page 11, constituting the first 11 bars of the Intermezzo's central section. Here, Straube advised revision of the pedal line: ‘Trills? Why not omit them?/The theme will be clearer./ Also, the pedal line perhaps in 6/4 from here on?’ [‘Triller? warum nicht weglassen?/Das Thema wird klarer./Außerdem Pedalpartie vielleicht in 6/4 weiter?’] Reger responded across the page: Tn the manual do not play any of the trills, rather only the quarters* [Tm Manual alle Triller nicht spielen, sondern nur die Viertel’], but he did retain the pedal trills beginning on the second score of page 11 in the autograph. He responded positively to Straube’s suggestion regarding the 6/4 time signature of the pedal line (reflecting of course the original structure of the theme as it appeared in the previous movement), and he carried it out in the tenor voice as well, once the theme enters there. At the bottom of page 11, Straube penciled alongside Reger’s original Più mosso the somewhat more conservative proposal ‘un poco mosso not better here?’ [‘hier nicht besser un poco mosso?’], followed by Reger’s positive responses in red. All of these changes were incorporated into the publisher’s autograph and the publication. Aside from the change of title at Straube’s suggestion (Passacaglia instead of Reger’s Ciacona; see Figure 2.11128) and the additional material already discussed, the last movement contained a different, earlier version of varia-

Reger's Music andStraube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918 101

Figure 2.19

Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Intermezzo mm. 4-8

tions 9 and 10 (bars 73-88) which Reger bracketed, noting, ‘I have done the two bracketed variations completely differently!’ [‘Die beiden eingeklam­ merten Variationen habe ich total anders gemacht!’]. Reger then supplied Straube with the revised material on an extra page, explaining where it must be inserted in the whole. It is difficult to speculate whether the revision was brought about through Straube’s instigation, since there is no evidence in the musical text that he objected to the original material. Finally with respect to issues of influence, there is one rather bizarre aspect of Reger’s musical style, to my knowledge discussed neither in his­ torical nor in contemporary literature, which appears in several of his organ pieces and which seems never to have been addressed by Straube. Presum­ ably to effect a sense of irregularity, Reger from time to time omits a bar of an established theme. This phenomenon parallels his often recognized (and often criticized) tendency to devise cuts merely by omitting one or several bars of through-composed material and fusing together the remain­ der, a practice made possible by an extremely free chromatic language (any

102 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

harmony can legitimately follow any other) and a rather loose attitude toward linear counterpoint. An example occurs in variation 15 of the Passacaglia op.33/3, shown in Figure 2.12 above, where Reger truncates the conventional ground bass of eight bars simply by omitting the fifth bar (what would have been m. 125). The omission of the critical fifth measure— criti­ cal because it constitutes the climax of the theme, turning it for a moment to the relative major—appears in Straube’s copy, in the autograph Reger subsequently prepared for the engraver, in the first edition, and of course in all editions since. Curiously enough, Straube seems not to have objected to the passage despite his demonstrated penchant for clarity and order. Further examples of this phenomenon in Reger’s scores elevate it from an anomalous occurrence to an element of his style.129

103

Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph, Intermezzo mm. 22-32

Reger's Music and Straube 's Musicianship, 1898-1918

Figure 2.20

104 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

In 1950 Straube explained his rationale for becoming ‘the first Thomaskantor since Bach who did not compose’ [‘ ... seit Bach der erste Thomaskantor, der nicht komponierte ...’] with some pride. See Straube, ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,’ 90. Of course, the tradi­ tion of composing church musicians is much older than he indicates here. On the one hand, Straube is due a certain admiration in not being counted among the centuries of commonplace Lutheran organists who put pen to paper in a purely pragmatic way: his immediate predecessor Gustav Schreck (1849-1918) is as relevant an example of this as any from previous centuries. On the other hand, his specialized emphasis on performance is an early expression of the trend which has effectively severed the formerly intimate relationship between theory and practice in church music. The same single-mindedness of purpose regarding composing vs. performance finds expression in Straube’s virtual abandonment of organ performance in 1918 in order to concentrate on choral music. On Reger as a performer-advocate for his own music, see especially Wilske, Max Reger: Zur Interpretation, 45-83. It is worth noting that, even in the sphere of piano perfor­ mance, Reger soon limited his repertory to chamber music in conjunction with other instruments and a few solo pieces of Bach. He entrusted the premiere of his Piano Concerto in F minor op. 114 to Frieda Kwast-Hodapp and Nikisch’s Gewandhaus. Because Reger developed a particularly close friendship with Straube, and because Straube proceeded to establish himself as a highly influential pedagogue over the subsequent decades, performance issues in Reger’s organ music have centered almost categorically around him. Figures like Paul Gerhardt in Zwickau, Otto Burkert in Brünn, Hermann Dettmer in Hannover, and Alfred Sittard in Dresden began to perform Reger’s music soon after Straube, and they deserve more attention in that regard than they have received in the past. These men were Straube’s colleagues rather than his pupils, and their particu­ lar solutions to the problems presented by Reger’s music are valuable if only because they presumably do not derive from Straube’s thinking. Bengt Hambraeus, ‘Karl Straube, Old Masters and Max Reger’; Susanne Popp, ‘Zur Quellenlage der Regerschen Orgelwerke,’ in Zur Interpretation der Orgelmusik Max Regers, 29-35. Also relevant is Popp’s introduction to the Reger-Straube correspondence in Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 9-18. The question of Straube’s involvement in the evolution of Reger’s op. 135b has a longer history. See especially Hartmut Haupt, ‘Max Regers letztes Orgelwerk op. 135b,’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 17 (Novem­ ber 1968): 6-12; and Ottmar Schreiber, ‘Zur Frage der gültigen Fassung von Regers Orgel-Opus 135b,’ Ibid. 19 (August 1973): 34-38. ‘Inherent within the severity and austerity of the melos is a depth of feeling which reminds us involuntarily of Johann Sebastian Bach’s tender-hearted melodic language. This wealth of feeling expresses itself in the strongest way in the Lieder and songs for voice and pianoforte, ffl] Next to his organ works, Reger has written nothing which sounds the unique note of his personality so much as these Lieder.’ [‘Immanent der Strenge und Herbheit des Melos ist eine Tiefe des Empfindens, die uns unwillkürlich an Johann Sebastian Bachs geftihlsreiche Melodik gemahnt. Am stärksten äußert sich diese

Reger*s Music and Straube *s Musicianship, 1898-1918 105 Empfindungsfülle in den Liedern und Gesängen für eine Singstimme und Pianoforte, ffl] Nächst seinen Orgelwerken hat Reger nichts geschrieben, was so stark die eigene Note seiner Persönlichkeit ausklingen läßt als diese Lieder.’] Karl Straube, ‘Max Reger,’ Die Gesellschaft 18 (1902): 176. 5. Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 7-8. 6. Susanne Popp rightly notes that ‘admittedly the absence of correspondence documents from this, the most interesting period of inquiry, appears to be no coincidence’ [‘ ... so scheint das Fehlen von Briefdokumenten aus dieser für die Fragestellung interes­ santesten Zeit allerdings kein Zufall zu sein.’]. Ibid., 9. Given what we know of Straube’s involvement with the organ works opp. 27-52, composed in a two-year period between 1898 and 1900 when Straube lived in Wesel and Reger in Weiden, it is impossible to imagine that written correspondence did not exist. Assuming that the copies were made with the intention of using them as the basis for a published edition (and, as far as I know, this is not ascertainable), it seems likely that Straube purposely withheld certain materials. Furthermore, it is probable that Reger and Straube communicated by letter even before their meeting in 1898: see Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 14. 7. The four large pieces from 1901 onward are the Second Sonata in D minor op. 60 (1901 ); the Variations and Fugue on an Original Theme in F-sharp minor op. 73 (1903); the Introduction, Passacaglia, and Fugue in E minor op. 127 (1913); and the Fantasy and Fugue in D minor op. 135b (1914-16). 8. It would be dangerous, though, to interpret Reger’s stance as mere obsequence. Reger seems to have taken issue not with the way Straube played his music, but rather with the way he programmed it. See for example Reger’s letter of 25 February 1905 to Straube, concerning the performance of the Variations and Fugue on an Original Theme in F-sharp minor op. 73, in which Reger vehemently disagreed with his friend’s intention to play the piece twice on the same recital. As was typical of the performer’s strong will, Straube failed to acquiesce. Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 81-82. Cf. Max Ansorge’s programming of Reger’s Second Sonata in D minor op. 60 twice on the same program in the Lutherkirche/Breslau, as reported in Musikalisches Wochenblatt 38 (2 May 1907): 419. 9. Karl Straube, review of Zwei Phantasien för Orgel op. 40, by Max Reger, in Monats­ schrift fur Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst 5 (1900): 209-213. Straube devoted nearly half of his essay to a discussion of the Protestant chorale’s role in organ composition since the seventeenth century. 10. ‘ ... seine Bibliothek von Orgelwerken, die er heute der Bibliothek des Landeskonser­ vatoriums zu Leipzig überwiesen h a t... ’ Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 13. Cf. Heinz Wunderlich, ‘Karl Straube, der Orgelpädagoge,’ in Held, ed., Karl Straube: Wirken und Wirkungx 38. 11. See Straube’s letter of 7 January 1944 to Friedrich Brinkmann in which he describes the total destruction of his apartments at Grassistraße 30. Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskan­ tors, 169-70. 12. My thanks to Frau Hildegund Rüger, former archivist at the Leipzig Hochschule, and to the librarians of that institution for their kind assistance. No library in the city of Leipzig

106 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition records any such holdings from Straube’s estate. The Bach-Archiv Leipzig houses cer­ tain scores of Bach cantatas and instrumental works with performance markings in Straube’s hand, but no organ works are preserved there. 13. Of course, the most important question here has to do with the degree to which Straube’s busy career was or was not unusual among German organists at the time. The documen­ tation of organ concert activity throughout Germany from ca. 1890 through ca. 1920 (or from the appearance of Reger to the first wave of Orgelbewegung theory) and the place­ ment of Straube within that complex, let alone a systematic comparison of this to, say, French or English activity from the same era, would require an enormous effort and has in fact never approached even a partial realization. Günther Hartmann points out, though, that Straube’s teacher Otto Dienel appeared in at least 896 recitals between 1864 and 1904 (only in Berlin?), and that his successor Bernhard Irrgang (to whom Reger dedicated his Four Preludes and Fugues op. 85) performed at least 699 concerts. See Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 32. Such information leads to other questions: Were the repertories of Dienel and Irrgang as consistently difficult as Straube’s? Did solo recitals comprise most of the performances in question, or did they (likely) follow the tendency of the period to include other media? 14. Rainer Cadenbach’s assertion that, due to personal disagreements and a certain cooling of their friendship, Straube did not play Reger publicly between December 1906 and March 1909 is erroneous. See Cadenbach, Max Reger und seine Zeit, 42. There are at least 18 documented Reger performances by Straube between those dates, including the annual appearance of the Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Ein’feste Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27 on the Reformation program of the Motetten between 1903 and 1909. While certain disagreements between Reger and Straube are demonstrable, and while Straube was not uncritical toward certain aspects of Reger’s style, nothing suggests that Straube’s attitude took the form of a boycott on Reger’s music, either in his own performances through 1918 or in his teaching through 1948. In this sense, too, Susanne Popp’s uncharacteristi­ cally hyperbolic statement that Straube’s critical stance ‘during the course of a long life, under the influence of the Orgelbewegung and the change of his own ideals ... finally led to the renunciation of Reger’s work’ [‘ ... im Laufe eines langen Lebens, unter dem Einfluß der Orgelbewegung und dem Wandel der eigenen Ideale ... schließlich bis zur Abkehr von Regers Werk führte’] finds no support in the evidence directly associated with Straube. See Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 16. 15. On the basis of certain surviving archives of the Welte firm, Peter Hagmann has estab­ lished that Reger recorded his organ works on 26 July 1913. The date (or dates) of Straube’s sessions is not ascertainable from the same sources, but the editors of Intercord CD 860.858 (Welte-Philharmonie-Orgel, on which Straube’s playing of BWV 542, 599, 659, and 606 is reproduced) date Straube’s organ rolls to 1922. Peter Hagmann, Das Welte-Mignon-Klavier, die Welte-Philharmonie-Orgel und die Anfänge der Reproduk­ tion von Musik (Bem: Peter Lang, 1984), 248-250. See also the photographs of Reger and Straube during their respective sessions in Kurt Binninger, ‘Die Welte Philharmo­ nie Orgel,’ Acta Organologica 19 (1986), 201-202. Also regarding the date of Straube’s recordings, at least two rolls housed in a large collection in Seewen, Switzerland (Welte

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship , 1898-1918 107

16.

17. 18.

19.

20. 21.

22.

rolls nos. 1820 and 1824) show dates (perhaps mistakenly?) of 1926 and 1928 respec­ tively. For this information, as well as for his reading of the present discussion regarding recordings, I am grateful to David Rumsey of Basel, Professor Emeritus at the Sydney Conservatorium. Max Reger, Max Reger spielt eigene Orgelwerke, LP 80 666, Columbia, 1961 (reissued by EMI Electrola as LP 1 C 053-28 925, 1973). Idem, Welte-Philharmonie-Orgel, INT LP 160.857, Intercord, 1986. The former recording was made from an instrument in the factory of Radium EG (Wipperfürth, now housed at the Musikautomaten-Museum in Seewen, Switzerland and intended for resoration), the latter from a Welte instrument in the Museum fur mechanische Musikinstrumente (Linz am Rhein). Intercord CD 860.858 cited above, which reproduces Straube’s playing of Bach’s works, used the Linz instru­ ment as well. Both Binninger, ‘Die Welte Philharmonie Orgel,’ and (especially) Hagmann, Das WelteMignon-Klavier, 177-183 passim, discuss these considerations in some detail. Straube’s playing is of interest not least due to the fact that it was recorded in 1922, after he had effectively given up his career as a performing organist but precisely during the period he was occupied with the so-called ‘Praetorius’ organ of Freiburg University and the older repertories with which that instrument was associated. The same expansive (‘Romantic’) approach to Bach’s organ works documented by Welte in 1922 is equally clear in the acoustically recorded (and considerably less polished) selections from Bach’s cantatas for the German radio in 1931 with the St. Thomas Choir and Gewandhaus orchestra under Straube’s direction. See Johann Sebastian Bach, Kantaten: Historische Aufnahmen 1931, CD produced by the Bach-Archiv Leipzig, 1997. Straube’s Berlin col­ league Walter Fischer had recorded BWV 535 for Welte during the same period in which Straube made his recordings, and this, too, is reproduced on INT CD 860.858. This is so for the instruments in the Kaiser Wilhelm Church/Berlin and Wesel Cathedral cited in Chapter 1, as well as for the Sauer instruments in the Alte Gamisonkirche/Berlin (1891/1909, associated with Straube’s first performances of Reger’s opp. 52/2 and 57) and the Jahrhunderthalle/Breslau (1913, for which Reger composed his op. 127). The Walcker-Sauer organs of the former Leipzig Conservatory, on which Straube taught from 1907-1948, and of the Gewandhaus, where Straube served as organist from 1908, also fell victim to air raids. See further Chapter 4 and Appendix 6. See Christian Scheffler, Die Restaurierung der Sauer-Orgel in der Thomaskirche zu Leipzig (Wiesbaden: Friedhelm Gerecke, n.d.). Ibid., 36-39; Falkenberg, Die Orgelbauer Wilhelm Sauer, 141-51; and Hermann Busch, ‘Die Orgelwelt Max Regers,’ 18-19. Both Falkenberg and Busch contain a few inaccura­ cies. I have included the organ’s accessories (couplers, pistons and the like) only as they existed in 1908, since it is not clear how they may have been different before that date. (Did Straube have three free combinations when he came to Leipzig in 1903?) Note that Sauer did not include 4* manual reeds in the large Wesel organ either. Reimann’s instrument in Berlin, which with its proliferation of independent mutation stops owed a great deal to the models of Sauer’s mentor Cavaillé-Coll, offered a 16’-8’-4’ reed chorus only on Manual I. Cf. the expansion of the 1887 Walcker instrument at the

108 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

23. 24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29. 30.

Leipzig Conservatory (Appendix 6), undertaken in 1909 by Sauer under Straube’s direc­ tion, which demonstrates an even more conservative attitude regarding reeds. ‘ ... Umbau und Erweiterung der Thomasorgel bis zur Größe der Nicolaiorgel.’ The entire letter is reproduced in Stiehl, ‘Organist und Kantor zu St. Thomas,’ 134-137. Heinrich Reimann had embraced the idea zealously in the 1895/97 Kaiser Wilhelm organ: the prestige of a church related directly to the size and accessories of its instru­ ment. ‘Es ist bei dem Umbau im Jahre 1902 leider nicht darauf geachtet worden, daß die drei Manuale der Orgel eine Ausdehnung vom großen C bis zum dreigestrichenen a erhalten. Das Instrument fuhrt in seinem jetzigen Zustand nur bis zum dreigestrichenen f hinauf. Diese etwas altmodische, enge Begrenzung des Manualumfanges macht es mir unmöglich, Compositionen der modernen französischen Schule, ich nenne bedeutende Namen wie César Franck und Charles Marie Widor, und neuerdings auch der jüngsten deutschen Orgelschule auf der Thomasorgel spielen zu können. Wenn ich dauernd meine führende Stellung unter den deutschen Organisten innehalten will, so ist eine Änderung der Orgel, wie sie oben erwähnt ist, eine unbedingte Notwendigkeit für mich.’ The entire letter is reproduced in Ibid., 138-140. Cavaillé-ColPs organ at St. Clotilde/Paris had precisely this ‘old-fashioned, narrow* compass, and his instruments for the Paris churches of St.-Sulpice and Notre Dame extended, as had Sauer’s Kaiser-Wilhelm organ, only to g3. It is worth noting here that the organs of Leipzig’s three major musical institutions—St. Thomas Church, Conservatory, and Gewandhaus—were renovated and expanded within two years of each other, all by Wilhelm Sauer and all under the supervision of Straube. The E. F. Walcker instruments of the Conservatory (Op. 491) and Gewandhaus (Op. 432) received pneumatic actions at the same time. Straube, who by 1908 had added the posts of Gewandhaus organist and Conservatory professor to his St. Thomas duties, was closely associated with all three organs. A comprehensive comparative study of the reno­ vations is highly desirable; it would serve, among other things, to demonstrate Straube’s intimate relationship to the Sauer firm. Cf. the comments of cantor Heinz Kirch, Straube’s second successor in Wesel, regarding the difficulties of both the different actions and the acoustic properties of the room. Cited in Dreimüller, ‘Karl Straubes Sauer-Orgel in Wesel,’ 69. On the overall conservativism prevalent in Leipzig’s musical circles when Straube came there in 1903, see Chapter 4. ‘Die hervorstechendsten Eigenschaften seines Bachspiels sind eine weise Mäßigung in dynamischer Beziehung und vor allem die Hintenansetzung des virtuosen Moments. Mag sein, daß er in dieser letzten Beziehung etwas zu weit gegangen is t... Während er Z .B . die große Ddur-Fuge, die Bach selbst als “Fuga concertato” bezeichnet hat, mit einer an’s Fabelhafte grenzenden Virtuosität vortrug, hat er bei den meisten andern Stücken, Z .B . bei der G moll-Fantasie und Fuge und bei dem A moll-Präludium und Fuge, die meistens im “brillanten” Styl ausgeführt werden, durchaus seiner Wiedergabe die­ jenige ‘Stimmung’ einzuhauchen verstanden, welche nach seiner Ansicht in den Stücken

Reger*s Music and Straube fs Musicianship, 1898-1918 109

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

enthalten ist.’ Walter Fischer, review of Karl Straube at the Alte Gamisonkirche/Berlin on 15 May 1906, Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 25 May 1906, 360. Stockmeier, ‘Karl Straube als Reger-Interpret.’ On the significance of Stockmeier’s remarks, which (and he does not point this out) find resonance in contemporary discus­ sions such as Fischer’s, see Chapter 3. “Des ausgezeichneten Künstlers eminente Befähigung ist hinlänglich bekannt und stets gewürdigt worden, insbesondere auch seine unerschöpfliche Kunst der Register­ mischung. Im Vortrage von Seb. Bachs C-dur Toccata, Adagio und Fuge tat er jedoch hierin unfraglich zu viel des Guten und Interessanten. Der langsame Mittelsatz z.B. klang zwar ganz herrlich, aber durchaus nicht Bachisch, sondern durchaus modern. Die Fuge erschien infolge des Bemühens, von bescheidenen Anfängen ausgehend, zu großer Steigerung zu gelangen, teils zu zerstückelt, teils zu kleinlich in der Gesamtanlage.’ Eugen Segnitz, review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 7 October 1909, Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 15 October 1909, 791. ‘Daß Professor Karl Straube die Fuge von der Dorischen Tokkata von vornherein ziem­ lich langsam spielte und weich anfaßte, und die Einheitlichkeit und Wirkung des Ganzen noch dadurch störte, daß er, nach einer stetig wachsenden Steigerung, von der Mitte an nochmals die anfängliche Tonstärke aufnahm, schien einigermaßen verwunderlich.* Curt Hermann, review of Karl Straube and the Leipzig Bachverein at the Thomaskirche/ Leipzig on 1 March 1911, Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 10 March 1911,285. Interestingly enough, another critic writes of the same performance, ‘Particularly impressive were the artistic crescendi which he brought to expression in the work.’ [‘Besonders imponierend waren die kunstvollen Steigerungen, welche er in dem Werke zum Ausdruck brachte.’] Oscar Köhler, review of Karl Straube and the Leipzig Bachverein at the Thomaskirche/ Leipzig on 1 March 1911, Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, 9 March 1911, 150. Im Registriren zeigte Herr Straube, daß er bemüht ist die Klangschönheiten und Kombi­ nationen der Orgel mehr als wir gewöhnt sind zur Geltung zu bringen und der herrschen­ den Schablone hierin ein Ende zu machen. Wenn er auch nicht die hohe Kunst und den Geschmack eines Guilmant besitzt, so können wir doch herzlich dankbar sein, daß er uns Neues bietet. Er scheint aber mit der Akustik der Kirche noch nicht vollauf vertraut zu sein, denn bei Buxtehude kamen ganze Stellen vor, von denen man am Altar überhaupt nichts hören konnte. Ermüdend wirkte auch die zu häufige Anwendung der v o i x c é l e s t e . Vemon Spencer, ‘Einiges über das Orgelspiel in Deutschland: Die Leipziger Orgelconcerte des Herrn Karl Straube,’ Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, 8 April 1903, 232. Spencer refers to Straube’s inaugural Leipzig recitals on 18 and 25 February and 4 March 1903. That Straube did not use registrants is confirmed by several sources, among them RobertTomow, Max Reger und Karl Straube, 28; and Hasse, ‘Karl Straube als Orgelkünstler,’ 157. It is probable that he inherited the practice from Heinrich Reimann, whose description of Charles-Marie Widor’s playing criticized both the infrequency of stop changes and the need of an assistant to accomplish even the most essential ones. See Heinrich Reimann, ‘Französische Orgelkomponisten,’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 26 June 1896, 361.

110 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition 36. Exceptionally, there are a few markings in the fugue of the Fantasy and Fugue in C minor op. 29 and the Passacaglia of the First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33. In bar 82 of the C-minor fugue, Straube writes ‘P.C. I* ab (Great to Pedal off). Neither he nor Reger indicates where it should be added; could Straube’s illegible scribbling just before the pedal entrance in bar 75 call for the coupler? In addition, Straube notes ‘Walze an!* (‘crescendo on!’) in the last two beats of bar 84, just after Reger writes ‘un poco meno p’ in the previous measure. Finally, over bar 111 Straube scribbles what appears to be ‘Rohr,’ indicating the entrance of reed stops, perhaps by means of the preset reed piston on the Wesel organ. This would make little sense, though, because there remain a full 40 bars of music in the fugue, and bar 111 is nowhere near the final crescendo prescribed by Reger. In bar 40 of op. 33’s Passacaglia (beginning of the fifth variation), Straube enters ‘Regist’ in pencil above the staff, either asking Reger to supply registration indications for the passage (which he did) or reminding himself to alter stops during performance. Just above the left hand counterpoint in the same bar, Straube pencils ‘sonore.’ 37. On Straube’s practice habits, see e.g. Hasse, ‘Karl Straube als Orgelkünstler,’ 156-157. 38. See, for instance, the discussion of Reger’s revisions to his op. 135b in my Reger, Straube, and the Leipzig School 's Tradition o f Organ Pedagogy: 1898-1948 (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1999), 434-461. 39. Vor allem muß mal betreffs des Satzes: “der schlichten Natur aus dem Wege zu gehen und durch Uebertreibungen aller Art, Leseschwierigkeiten etc.” fur alle Zeiten festgestellt werden: damit hat Herr Professor Dr. Riemann vollständig recht; es gibt nämlich seit 15 Jahren Ausgaben der Meisterwerke Bachs, Mozarts, Beethovens etc. etc., die tatsächlich nur nach dem Prinzip geschaffen sind: “der schlichten Natur aus dem Wege zu gehen und durch Uebertreibungen aller Art, Leseschwierigkeiten” etc.! Merkwürdigerweise sind diese Ausgaben—von Hugo Riemann.’ Reger, ‘Degeneration und Regeneration in der Musik,’ 251-252. 40. The 1912 edition of op. 59/7-9 was made, as appears on the title page, ‘with the approval of the composer’ [‘im Einverständnis mit dem Komponisten*]. Wolfgang Stockmeier’s well-constructed argument against Straube’s editorial practice centers not on its com­ plexity per se, but rather on Straube’s misunderstanding of Reger’s formal intentions. Again, see Chapter 3. 41. ‘Darum heißt das Leitwort für Reger-Registrierkunst: Einfachheit. Wir haben dies an dem Spiel des ausgezeichneten Leipziger Professors Karl Straube bewundert. Wie ein­ fach und groß war da alles angelegt!—wie völlig frei von jeder Effekthascherei und sogenannten Registrierkunststücken. Wie überaus klar klang die komplizierte Fuge in der Phantasie: Hallelujah, Gott zu loben bleibe meine Seelenfreud. Wir wissen es: alle Hörer von Orgelmusik kann man in 2 Gruppen einteilen, in solche, welche wirkliche Musik hören wollen und solche, welche nur Klangfarben und bestimmte Charackterstimmen zu genießen wünschen. Die zweite Gruppe von Hörem ist die bei weitem größere. Sie ist geradezu “kirchenfullend” groß ... Aber nur der Organist, der allen klanglichen Zauber seines Instruments unterordnet unter den höheren Gesichtspunkt des musika­ lischen Gedankens, nur der ist imstande, Reger zu spielen und nur der wird sich in der Registerauswahl auch schnell und leicht zurechtfinden. Denn im Grunde genom-

Reger*s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918 111

42.

43.

44. 45. 46.

47.

men ist Regers Registrierung sehr einfach. Mit einer zart streichenden pp Registrierung (Ged. 8’ Aeoline 8*, Viola 4’ und entsprechenden Pedal), einem durchstechenden 8fußigen Register,—mit einem sonoren prinzipalartigen Mezzoforte, einem gut besorgten crescendo bis zum vollen Werk und einigen “marcato”-Registem im ff wird im we­ sentlichen die ganze Regeriana bestritten.’ Walter Fischer, Über die Wiedergabe, 10-11. Fischer’s comment concerning ‘marcato* stops illustrates well the point that Reger’s use of the term ‘marcato,’ at least in organ music, implies more about registration than it does about articulation. See my ‘Walter Fischer’s Comments on the Playing of Reger’s Organ Music,’ The Organ Yearbook 25 (1995), 123-136. ‘Und man darf als besondere Tugend hervorheben, daß er es, im Gegensatz zu vielen Orgelkünstlem, weislich vermeidet, Fugen oder Stellen von wichtiger Polyphonie mit dunklen Registern oder gar mit Rohrwerk zu belasten, bis die Stimmführung dem Ohre undurchdringlich ist. Dabei ist er im ganzen bestrebt, die Leistung der Orgel der des Orchesters anzunähem—eine Tendenz, zu der namentlich Regersche Kompositionen Grund und Anlaß geben.’ Robert-Tornow, Max Reger und Karl Straube, 28. Organists may take these comments as good advice, particularly at the end of Reger’s organ fugues, where many players tend to cloud an already elaborate complex of voices with reeds and mixtures well before those stops need be added. ‘So kann ich Ihnen nur den Rat geben, nach den Gegebenheiten des Instrumentes Aus­ druck und Klangfarbe zu differenzieren, ohne ins Kleinliche oder allzu Subjektive zu verfallen... Reger hat in allen Vortragsangaben, dynamisch wie agogisch, sich einer sol­ chen Unmäßigkeit hingegeben, daß seine Angaben bei nicht denkenden Menschen mehr Verwirrung als Klarheit geschaffen haben. Das, was er erreichen wollte mit seinen Adagissimi, Vivacissimi, molto agitato, piu molto agitato, Andante (quasi Allegro vivace), stets nie hervortretend, mit der ganzen Skala von pppp bis Jfjf ist ein seelisch bewegter Vortrag. Die Anwendung von FD-Zug-Geschwindigkeiten im Zeitmaß oder Hochdruck von Sirenengeheul ist ein Verbrechen gegen seine Kunst. Das gleiche gilt von dem Gegenteil an Schneckenlangsamkeit und nicht mehr zu hörendem Gesäusel.’ Letter of 25 February 1944 in Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 174. ‘ ... den Glanz und die Pracht des Meistersinger-Orchesters ... ’Bach, Orgelwerke Band //, ed. Straube, 4. ‘ ... lebt der anmutsvolle Zauber der Rokokokunst.’ Ibid., 11. ‘Das Praeludium flüstert von dem Zauber stiller Frühlingsnächte. Klänge, noch halb in Träumen, eröffnen den sanft dahinschwebenden Reigen;... “Wie die Töne der Äolsharfe müssen die harmonischen Folgen da sein, ohne Veranlassung, ohne ihr Instrument zu verraten” (Novalis).’ Ibid., 23. Reger’s choice of the German licht clearly implies luminous color (he might have used leuchtend or even durchsichtig) rather than ‘light’ weight. In the second movement of the Second Sonata in D minor op. 60, Reger chooses dumpf (‘muffled’) instead of dunkel. The Fantasy on the Chorale Wachet auf ruft uns die Stimme ’ op. 52/2, much played by Straube, offers a particularly effective example of the contrast. Here, Reger intended the juxtaposition of transparent registrations at 8’ and 4’ with darker combinations at 16’ and 8’ to represent the ultimate displacement of darkness by light (the advent of Christ

112 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

48.

49.

50.

51.

52. 53.

on earth, the victory of good over evil) portrayed in Nicolai’s text. Reger applied the concept in a more localized way in the Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Halleluja! Gott zu loben ' op. 52/3 (also a favorite of Straube), where he calls for ‘very “light” registration’ [‘sehr “lichte” Registrierung’] to accompany the text ‘He, the Lord, lovingly gives sight to the blind; the crippled and sick find with Him strength, comfort, and light’ [‘Er, der Herr, ist’s, der den Blinden liebreich schenket das Gesicht; die Gebeugten, Kranken finden bei ihm Stärke, Trost und Licht.’]. The migration of the cantus firmus from the alto to the soprano voice midway through the second phrase serves as a supportive rhetorical gesture. As is typical of Reger, these kinds of suggestions toward descriptive color are completely abandoned with the onset of the final, fugai variation in both opp. 52/2 and 52/3. Subjective tone painting is in some sense overcome by objective, scholarly coun­ terpoint. If Reger in fact adopted the form from Reimann’s op. 25, he was more flexible in his treatment of it than Straube suggested—indeed had any need of suggesting—to Klotz. Op. 27 employs neither an introduction nor a fugue. Opp. 30,40/2, and 52/1 open with an introduction but forgo a closing fugue. Of the seven chorale fantasies, Reger composed only opp. 40/1, 52/2, and 52/3 in Reimann’s tripartite form. Perhaps as striking as any formal similarity is the affinity of Reger’s op. 52/3 fugue subject to Reimann’s in op. 25, both in G major. Straube’s letter to Klotz appears in Straube, Briefe eines Thomas­ kantors, 234-235. The implications of a texted cantus prius factus appearing in purely instrumental music constitutes a significant independent topic which cannot be addressed here. Reger’s par­ ticular use of this kind of text underlay certainly is meant to communicate something important to the performer, much as it does, say, in Alban Berg’s Violin Concerto of 1935, where, as is well known, F. J. Burmeister’s text Es ist genung appears along with Johann Rudolf Ahle’s tune and an almost exact harmonization of that chorale extracted from J. S. Bach’s Cantata BWV 60 O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort. In that case, it is perhaps less than coincident that Berg issued from Arnold Schoenberg’s circle, which had occu­ pied itself with intense, serious study of Reger’s music. See especially in this regard the Intermezzo from the Suite in E minor op. 16. There is good evidence that Straube may have influenced the content of certain pitch level indica­ tions in the Fantasy and Fugue in D minor op. 135b: see Anderson, Reger, Straube, and the Leipzig School 's Tradition, 446-448. Foremost among the works in question is the first organ piece Reger composed after meeting Straube, the Fantasy on the Chorale Ein'feste Burg ist unser Gott' op. 27, which is replete with specific registration suggestions. Reger supplied occasional sugges­ tions in subsequent works, too (e.g. the First Sonata op. 33), but with nothing approach­ ing the frequency of those found in op. 27. Reger did not employ stop names in any organ work composed before his acquaintance with Straube. In bar 204 he instructs ‘Volles Werk mit Koppel’ for the final statement of the ground bass. ‘ ... volles Werk mit sämtlichen Koppeln (K).’ This does not appear in the autograph copy made for Straube.

Reger's Music and Straube 's Musicianship, 1898-1918 113 54. The large works of 1898-1901 (opp. 27, 29, 30, 33, 40, 46, 52, and 57) offer a very different picture from those of more modest dimensions of the same period (the collec­ tions opp. 47, 56, and 59; and the works without opus number Introduction and Pas­ sacaglia in D minor, Variations and Fugue on 'Heil, unserm König, Heil and Prelude in C minor). In great contrast to the detailed instructions of the former works, the latter offer the organist no advice whatsoever regarding couplers, the single exception being the II/I (K II) coupler indication in bar 81 of the Introduction and Passacaglia in D minor. On the first page of this piece, too, Reger iterated his definition of Organo pleno. Of the organ works composed at Munich from 1901 to 1907, including the big pieces of opp. 60 and 73, Reger’s requests for couplers are inconsistent or absent. 55. This situation, i.e. the disparity between editions filled with extra manual changes versus performing scores with none, parallels the issue of stops and couplers. In this case, it may be rooted in the fact that Straube’s editions from the period (1912 and 1919; his 1938 edition of op. 27 involves a different set of circumstances) comprise smaller works the composition of which probably took place without his direct influence. In other words, the large organ works from 1898-1900 for which Reger prepared two autographs must to some extent already reflect Straube’s views regarding manual changes, since his involve­ ment in their genesis is demonstrable. On the other hand, he probably felt he needed to edit such instructions into the smaller works of opp. 59, 65, 80, and 85, since (1) Reger had published them without his input, and/or (2) many of the pieces (say, the Wagnerian Kyrie eleison op. 59/7) are of a different musical character than most of the larger works. Straube’s manual changes in his copy of op. 52/2 have already been described by Her­ mann Busch, ‘Karl Straube spielt Regers Choralfantasie ‘Wachet a u f op. 52 Nr. 2,’ Der Kirchenmusiker 40 (1989), 97-100. 56. See e.g. Arnold Ebel, review of Karl Straube at the Alte Gamisonkirche/Berlin on 8 and 11 November 1913, Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 21 November 1913, 1490-1491. Stu­ dents and colleagues occasionally documented Straube’s technique in essays from the period, e.g. Otto Beck, ‘Karl Straube,’ Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, 16 June 1920, 166. 57. See below, and especially Reger’s postcard to Straube from 12 April 1916 in Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 258. 58. It is worth noting that the revision, although it appeared in Simrock’s first edition and continues to be published by Edition Peters as EP No. 3981, is not included in Max Reger, Sämtliche Werke, unter Mitarbeit des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa-Reger-Stiftung Bonn, ed. Hans Klotz., 35 vols, and 3 supplement vols. (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1954-1970 and 1974-1984). It likewise does not appear in Idem, Sämtliche Orgelwerke, nach der Reger-Gesamtausgabe (Hans Klotz), ed. Martin Weyer, 7 vols. (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1987-1988). 59. Straube, ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,’ 87. 60. ‘Was aber das Geheimnis Straubescher Kunst im besonderen ausmacht, das ist meines Erachtens nach seine sorgfältige detaillierte Phrasierung, die auch die unbedeutendste Sechszehntelfigur in nebensächlichen Begleitstimmen nicht unberücksichtigt läßt. Die meisten Orgelkomponisten und auch die meisten Orgellehrer alter Schule haben gerade in puncto Phrasierung viel gesündigt, so daß man wohl sagen muß, daß verhältnismäsig

114 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

wenige der heutigen Organistengeneration dieses Gebiet der Technik, welches gerade für die etwas dickflüssige Orgel so kolossal wichtig ist, hinreichend beherrschen ... Durch die Straubesche Phrasierungsweise wird das musikalische Bild klar, deutlich, plastisch und Jedem verständlich.’ Walter Fischer, review of Karl Straube at the Alte Gamisonkirche/Berlin in May 1906, Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 18 May 1906, 345. ‘Zu diesen Hauptforderungen gesellt sich die Sorge um eine gute Phrasierung. Wir Organisten phrasieren ja noch nicht so lange. Denken wir daran, daß die mangelhaften Phrasierungsvorschriften eines so bedeutenden Orgelkomponisten wie Joseph Rhein­ berger aus jüngster Zeit stammen! Bahnbrechend hat in dieser Beziehung der unvergleich­ liche Karl Straube gewirkt. In seinen Liszt-Bearbeitungen und in seinen Sammlungen der Werke alter Meister gab er uns alles, was wir brauchen. Regers Phrasierungsbe­ zeichnungen sind nicht minder vorzüglich. Die Wirkung eines Regerschen Orgelstückes hängt wesentlich von der Sorgfalt ab, mit der der Interpret sich nach den Phrasierungs­ vorschriften des Komponisten gerichtet hat. Wir Kirchenmusiker mit unserer ausglei­ chenden, verwischenden Kirchenakustik können darin nicht genug tun. Bei schlechter Akustik wird oft die beste Phrasierung wenig nutzen. Aber Unterlassungssünden auf dem Gebiete der Phrasierung rächen sich bitter. Auch hier geht probieren über studieren. Man spiele Regersche Stücke einige Tage vor dem Konzert einem Freunde vor, der unten in der Kirche sitzt und die Noten verfolgt. Wir werden dann bald merken, wie oft unpla­ stisch wirkendes Spiel seinen Grund in ungenügender Phrasierung hat.’ Fischer, Über die Wiedergabe, 18. Fischer refers to Straube’s edition of Liszt’s works from 1904: Franz Liszt, Orgelwerke, ed. Karl Straube (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1904), published under the number EP 3084. Straube would edit Liszt again in 1917 in a method virtually identical to that of his Reger editions from 1912 and 1919. Concerning source problems surround­ ing the Liszt editions see Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 171-172. This is a curious comment, and Straube himself might not have concurred. Straube, who in his editions takes care to phrase each voice independently, seems to have viewed key­ board phrasing in a more detailed way than did Reger, who, to the extent that he provided phrasing at all, often confined himself to large gestures. In any case, Straube altered and supplemented Reger’s phrasing indications in his editions. See further Chapter 3. The Straube pupil Otto Beck (1909-1914) related in 1920 how Straube often altered the printed indications ‘because musical logic and aesthetic instinct led him to a better reason for his own phrasing’ [‘ ... weil die musikalische Logik und der ästhetische In­ stinkt ihn für seine eigene Bindung eine bessere Begründung finden ließen’]. Beck, ‘Karl Straube,’ 166. Reimann, ‘Ueber den Vortrag,’ 136-137. Reimann concerned himself primarily with reg­ istration, but he surely would have included phrasing under the ‘further nuances of per­ formance’ [‘weitere Vortragsnüancen’] he mentioned. ‘Wie ich auf der Orgel artikulierte, habe ich in meiner Ausgabe “Alte Meister des Orgelspiels” vom Jahre 1904 und in der 1907 veröffentlichten Sammlung “Choralvor­ spiele alter Meister” durch nähere Vortragsbezeichnungen niederzulegen versucht. Ich gab damit Aufiührungsvorschriften, die nicht einer nüchternen Überlegung am Schreib­ tisch entsprangen, sondem Ausdruck eines von dem nachprüfenden Verstände kontrol-

Reger*s Music and Straube *s Musicianship, 1898-1918 115

66.

67. 68. 69.

70. 71.

72.

73.

lierten ursprünglich spontanen Empfindens waren. Ich wollte diese Andeutungen von dem Orgelspieler auch nicht mit sklavischer Buchstabentreue befolgt sehen. Sie sollten ihm immer noch die Freiheit lassen, sein eigenes musikalisches Empfinden zu äußern, [f] Wenn in meiner Neuausgabe des zweiten Bandes von Bachs Orgelwerken, der 1913 bei Peters erschien, das Artikulationsprinzip noch konsequenter durchgefuhrt ist, dann ist das die unmittelbare Nachwirkung meiner näheren Beschäftigung mit dem Vokalstil Bachs ... In diesen Vokalsätzen fand ich die Artikulation durch die individuelle Bindung jeder Tonlinie an den Worttext schon weitgehend vorgezeichnet. Wie Bach hier durch eine mehrere Noten umfassende Silbe Legatobogen spannte, wie er durch die Wortver­ teilung Auftaktlinien zog und synkopische Akzente setzte, das erlaubte mir, mancherlei Rückschlüsse zu ziehen auf die Möglichkeiten einer Artikulation der Bachschen Orgelpolyphonie.’ Straube, ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,’ 87-88. Admittedly, Reger did not proceed on as consistent a theoretical basis as Riemann would have hoped, but Reger’s tendency to elaborate upon upbeat formations is abundantly clear in his music. See further Ludger Lohmann, ‘Hugo Riemann and the Development of Musical Performance Practice’; and Gerd Sievers, Die Grundlagen Hugo Riemanns bei Max Reger. Curt Herold had postulated Reger’s reliance on Riemann’s theories, har­ monic as well as rhythmic, as early as 1912. See Herold, ‘Der Einfluss Hugo Riemann’s auf Max Reger.’ As noted above, Straube and Riemann lived in Leipzig until the latter’s death in 1919. Busch, ‘Karl Straube spielt Regers Choralfantasie,’ 98-99. Unfortunately, both Hans Klotz’s Sämtliche Werke and Martin Weyer’s ‘critically reviewed’ [‘kritisch durchgesehen’] Sämtliche Orgelwerke leave much to be desired, with respect to both textual accuracy and (especially) critical method. Perhaps the two types of markings indicate different time periods and hence different stages of Straube’s ideas, but this is not demonstrable. See Busch, ‘Karl Straube spielt Regers Choralfantasie,’ and my own ‘Die Regemoten des amerikanischen Straube-Schülers Georg Lillich: Zur Regerpädagogik der StraubeSchule in den Jahren 1929 bis 1930,’ in Reger-Studien 6: Musikalische Moderne und Tradition (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf, 2000), especially 360-363. Busch, ‘Karl Straube spielt Regers Choralfantasie,’ 98. As noted above, the Wesel organ’s pedal compass extended only to dl. Did the pedal compass of Sauer’s 1891 instrument for Berlin’s Alte Gamisonkirche, on which Straube first performed op. 52/2, extend beyond this? ‘Das häufige Vorkommen voll auszuhaltender Schlußnoten der Phrasen führte zur Anwendung der ... in eine Spitze zusammenlaufenden Bögen oder aber (bei längeren Noten) des Tenuto-Strichs über der Schlußnote:

r der also nicht irgendwelchen Akzent, sondern lediglich das volle Aushalten der Note trotz des Bogenendes anzeigen soll.’ Hugo Riemann, Vademecum der Phrasierung, 3rd ed., Max Hesses illustrierten Handbüchern no. 16 (Berlin: Hesse, 1912), 2. Reger

116 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

employs this and other elements of Riemann’s notation relatively infrequently, and its appearance in op. 33 is certainly an anomaly. The only organ work in which he relies heavily upon Riemann’s language is the 1894 chorale prelude on Komm, süßer Tod. This is probably as valid an observation for music making generally as for Straube’s style specifically. With respect to the former attitude (slurs necessitating legato), Riemann had written as early as 1890 that ‘[t]he employment of the slur as a sign for legato play­ ing is quite abandoned, inasmuch, at least, as its presence neither necessitates legato nor excludes staccato. It is assumed that notes included under a slur are to be played legato, wherever staccato marks do not call for the contrary; for the legato is the primary, usual way of connecting tones, particularly such as are combined to form one motive or phrase.’ Hugo Riemann and Carl Fuchs, Practical Guide to the Art o f Phrasing, trans. Theodore Baker (New York: G. Schirmer, 1890), 10. As to the latter idea (the possibil­ ity of phrasing independent of articulation), it might be argued that Riemann’s use of a particular notation on its behalf suggests its presence in common practice; at the least it demonstrates his conviction that the notion was both theoretically and practically valid. Most players would opt automatically for downbeat groupings of three notes, not least due to the more manageable technical demands required for their execution. In his defense, Straube could point out that the pedal triplets in fact establish their pattern as an upbeat (from beat 5 in bar 38), but this is purely incidental, since Reger actually begins the motivic sequence with the soprano d2 on beat 4 of the same bar. Given Straube’s repeated performances of op. 33 and the apparent heavy use to which the manuscript was subjected, it is certainly possible that the ‘levels’ of phrasing here reflect not a unified concept derived from a single sitting, but rather a number of ideas entered into the score at different periods. If Straube used the autograph throughout his performance career (and there is no way of knowing whether he did), it is possible that he entered the blue slurs for the first performance on 14 June 1899 (Kreuzkirche/Essen) and the penciled hash marks for, say, the Reger Gedächtnisfeier on 27 October 1916 (Konservatorium/Leipzig). Again, on Straube’s editions and editorial philosophy see Chapter 3. Straube’s practice of edition making varied greatly between 1903 and 1950, and his publications appear­ ing within even a short period of each other could differ as to the kind of suggestions he offered in them. Neither his Alte Meister des Orgelspiels (1904) nor his Choralvor­ spiele alter Meister (1907) includes fingering or pedaling, whereas for example his Bach Orgelwerke Band /7(1913) contains copious instructions in this regard. Busch, ‘Karl Straube spielt Regers Choralfantasie,’ 98. The other example, to which Busch refers but does not cite, is m. 94 (or m. 14 of the fugue). Straube fingers the last two soprano sixteenth notes (f-sharpl, g-sharpl) with right hand 2-1. As Busch points out, the passage is quite benign, particularly in comparison with the hundreds of others for which Straube might be expected to supply fingering. Straube’s fingering for mm. 59-61, though, is indeed ‘of practical interest’ [‘von praktischem Interesse’]. When Straube edited op. 27 for publication in 1938, he again chose this latter version. See the passage in Max Reger, Phantasie über den Choral 'Einfeste Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27, ed. Karl Straube (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1938), 2.

Reger*s Music and Straube *s Musicianship, 1898-1918 117 80. It is equally possible that Straube’s use of the heel related to other aspects of his tech­ nique. An extensive use of Walze, swell shoe, and other devices available to the organist’s feet, for example, would have in some cases necessitated the integration of heel-toe playing. 81. One might also argue that a desire to distance himself from a perceived empty virtuos­ ity, which tendency is in fact observable on Straube’s part and duly noted in accounts of his playing, was a significant factor in his disinclination toward fast tempi. On the other hand, it would be wrong to conclude that Straube uniformly favored a slow or even moderate pace: the Munich critic Heinrich Porges, for instance, noted of Straube’s recital in that city on 8 March 1899 that ‘he performed the most complicated passagework with a rapidity one would have thought hardly attainable at the organ’ [‘ ... er führt das verwickelteste Passagenwerk in einer Schnelligkeit aus, die man auf der Orgel für kaum erreichbar gehalten hätte.’]. Heinrich Porges, review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 8 March 1899, Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, 10 March 1899, in Susanne Popp, ed., Der junge Reger (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf, 2000), 397. 82. ‘Von der großen Symphonischen Phantasie und Fuge op. 57 ist vor allem zu sagen, daß sie diesmal ungleich klarer und deutlicher herausgekommen ist, als seinerzeit in Basel bei der vorigjährigen Tonkünstlerversammlung ... Hier feierte Straubes Virtuosität ihren größten Triumph. Gewiß spielte er nicht alles im richtigen Tempo (oder genauer gesagt: nicht im v o r g e s c h r i e b e n e n Tempo; denn Regers bekannte Vorliebe für kleine Notenwerte mag oft irreführend sein und die wahren Intentionen des Komponisten fälschen)—und eine Kontrolle der Wiedergabe durch das Ohr in Bezug auf noten­ getreue Akkuratesse in allem Detail ist bei dieser Musik oft absolut unmöglich. Aber was er bot, war eine ganz erstaunliche Leistung. Sehr wohltuend berührte es, daß Herr Straube gegen früher merklich ruhiger und geklärter geworden zu sein scheint. Einzig und allein in der Fuge machte sich bisweilen noch ein wenig jene Nervosität bemerkbar, die früher den reinen Genuß an Straubes hoher Kunst oft so empfindlich be­ einträchtigte.’ Rudolf Louis, review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 29 April 1904, Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, 5 May 1904, in Ottmar and Ingeborg Schreiber, Max Reger in seinen Konzerten, voi. 3, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/ Elsa-Reger-Stiftung, ed. Susanne Popp, no. 7 (Bonn: Dümmler, 1981), 43-44. The previ­ ous performance of op. 57 to which Louis referred took place on 14 June 1903 in the Münster zu Basel, for which occasion he had submitted his caustic description of Reger’s music as belonging to ‘the cult of u g 1i n e s s for its own sake’ [‘(der)] Kult des H ä ß l i c h e n um seiner selbst willen’). See Louis’ 1903 review in Münchner Neueste Nachrichten , 23 June 1903, as reprinted in Ibid., 34-35. Expanded type in both cases is Louis’. 83. ‘ ... Regers Orgelmusik nicht nur einführte, sondern durch seine unübertreffliche Kunst auch gleich ein Höhenmaß schuf, an welchem die Interpretation Regerscher Orgelkunst­ werke gemessen werden kann.* Walter Fischer, ‘Max Reger als Orgelkomponist,' Allge­ meine Musik-Zeitung, 11-18 August 1905, 526. 84. ‘Bei der Phantasie fehlt jede Metronomisierung, und Reger beschränkt sich hier auf Andeutungen des Tempos, wie z.B. Grave, Andante, Vivace etc. Dennoch ist die

118 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition richtige Temponahme in dieser Fantasie ein Problem und wird eine Streitfrage—ähnlich wie der Tempostreit in den Orgelwerken Bachs—bleiben, solange diese Fantasie gespielt wird. Ich glaube deshalb des Interesses vieler sicher zu sein, wenn ich an dieser Stelle einige Stellen aus einem Briefe Karl Straubes, der auf dieses Thema eingeht, auf­ notiere. Straube schreibt: “Metronomisierung eines Kunstwerks ist immer eine halbe Sache. Die organische Linie des Aufbaues gibt der Reproducierende im Augenblick der Wiedergabe. Bei Reger vor allem ist die äußerste Subjektivität im Gestalten das we­ sentliche Moment fur den nachschaffenden Künstler. Die Grundbedingung eines jeden ‘Regerspiels’ ist ä u ß e r s t e s tempo rubato. Vielleicht ist nach mancher Richtung ein breiteres Tempo dem allzuschnellen vorzuziehen. Die B-A-C-H-Fantasie und Fuge verlangt eine überstürzende Steigerung im Tempo. Auf S. 5 findet sich im 1. Takt die Bemerkung: ‘quasi Adagissimo’. Dieses Tempo ist s e h r v i e l breiter als das Hauptzeitmaß. Mit dem ‘poco a poco stringendo’ wächst das Tempo wieder bis zum ersten Zeitmaß hinaus. S. 5 Più andante «h = 92. S. 7 8 «h = 112. S. 9 1. Zeile 3. Takt (1. Hälfte) sehr langsam; h moll-Akkord verschweben lassen. Vivace S. 9 «h =132. Più vivace «h = 144. Auf S. 11 Zeile 2 Takt 2 etwas zurückhalten (B dur-Sextakkord), dann wieder antreiben bis zu den doppelten Terzentonleitem. S. 13 Akkordpassagen we­ sentlich langsamer. S. 13 Zeile 3 s e h r b r e i t ausführen. Vivace assai m ö g l i c h s t schnell. S. 15 Zeile 1 zweite Hälfte des Taktes B dur 6/4 Akkord etwas breiter. Zeile 2 ursprüngliches Vivace-Tempo bis zu dem vorgeschriebenen Adagio.’” Ibid. The inter­ pretation of tempo Straube outlines here does not approach the radical nature of his sug­ gestions in his edition, say, of the Benedictus op. 59/9 from 1912, and it differs in certain important ways from the way he taught op. 46 in e.g. the late 1920s. See Chapters 3 and 4, and especially my discussion of the Straube pupil George Lillich’s Reger scores in Anderson, ‘Die Regemoten des amerikanischen Straube-Schülers Georg Lillich.’ 85. ‘Ein richtig gewähltes Grundtempo ist natürlich für die rhythmisch-fesselnde Wieder­ gabe von allergrößter Bedeutung. Wenn wir daraufhin einmal Regers Werke betrachten, so kommen wir bald auf einen Kardinalfehler beim Reger-Spiel: auf den allzu schnell gewählter Tempi. In diesen Fehler verfallt fast jeder, der anfangt, Reger zu studieren. Die Musik drängt so gewaltig vorwärts, Regers Tempobezeichnungen werden auch oft falsch gedeutet, das leidige “Eilen” im Fugenspiel stört bei Reger ebenso wie bei Bach—was Wunder, daß oft das Tempo überhetzt wird. Im allgemeinen geht man nicht fehl, wenn man immer eine Nuance langsamer spielt, als das musikalische Gefühl uns eingibt. Ein Zurückhalten—nicht um wesentliches—ist im Interesse der Plastik auf der Orgel immer von Vorteil. Im übrigen ist Temponahme etwas so Subjektives, daß man fast glauben könnte, alle Metronomisierungen, selbst die des Komponisten seien nicht maßgebend. Einer spielt ein Stück langsam—der andre dasselbe Stück schnell besser. Wir wissen auch nicht, in welcher seelischen Verfassung ein Komponist seine Metronomisierung schrieb. Hätte er tagsdrauf unter anderen physiologischen oder psychologischen Beein­ flussungen metronomisiert: die Ziffer wäre vielleicht anders ausgefallen. Ich verweise auf eine Fußnote in der Regerschen B-A-C-H Fuge: “Die angegebene Metronomisierung ist nur eine ungefähre Andeutung der allmählichen Beschleunigung des Tempo”. Das gibt doch sehr zu denken. Und in der Tat: Abgesehen von einem allgemeinen Tempo-

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship, 1898-1918 119 grad, der sich in Worten kristallisiert, wie “Grave”, “Andante”, “Moderato”, “Allegro” ist die Möglichkeit einer berechtigten Tempomodifikation sehr groß, und der Interpret tut gut, heirbei ganz subjektiv zu handeln. Ich unterhielt mich einmal mit Karl Straube über die Cdur-Fuge aus den “Monologen”. Da steht am Anfang: II. Manual, mf, con moto. Straube verwandelte mit einem Bleistift das “II. Manual” in “III. Man.”, das “m f ’ in ein “pp” und das “con moto” in ein “moderato molto”. Er bemerkte dazu: “Auch der Komponist steht seinem Werke nicht objektiv gegenüber. Die organische Linie des Aufbaues gibt der Nachschaffende im Augenblick der Wiedergabe”. Wir bleiben also dabei: Metronomisierungen sind nur allgemeine Hinweise auf das rechte Tempo, aber nicht verbindlich fur den Spieler. Viel besser ist ein eifriges Versenken in den Geist des Stückes und ein öfteres Durchprobieren einzelner Stellen in verschiedenen Tempi. Wir probieren soviel an der Registrierung herum. Versuchen wir einmal mit ähnlichem Eifer durch Probieren auf das richtige Tempo zu kommen. Gewiß gibt es Stellen bei Reger, die gamicht schnell genug gespielt werden können (z. B. die Tonleiterpassagen in der B-A-C-H-Phantasie); wo aber das polyphone Geflecht der Stimmen verzweigter und reichhaltiger wird, da heißt die Regel: lieber zu langsam als zu schnell.* Fischer, Über die Wiedergabe, 15-17. Note the almost exact repetition of the sentence attributed to Straube ‘The interpreter creates the organic line ... * [‘Die organische Linie des Aufbaues ... ’], refering in 1905 to op. 46, in 1910 to op. 63. 86. Interesting in this regard are both the positive and negative descriptions of Reger’s piano playing in sources from the period. While an extreme subtlety in touch and dynamic range seems to have been a hallmark of his playing, some eyewitnesses attested an uncontrolled nervous excitement in crescendi and stringendi which led Reger danger­ ously close to the dissolution of the music altogether. See especially Wilske, Max Reger: Zur Interpretation, 45 ff. Heinz Wunderlich points out that while studying op. 57 with Straube in 1940, Straube changed the opening directives to read ‘agitato (ma non allegro) e molto espressivo,’ and he claims that this and other changes made to his score of the piece were part of Straube’s thinking as early as 1902. See Wunderlich, ‘Karl Straubes Vortragsbezeichnungen. ’ 87. ‘ ... 40 pausenlose Minuten Experimentalmusik ... ’ Paul Riesenfeld, review of Karl Straube at the Jahrhunderthaile/Breslau on 24 September 1913, Allgemeine MusikZeitung, 1 November 1913, 1418. Modem performances of op. 127 require about a half hour. Straube’s two programs at the Jahrhunterthalle/Breslau constituted at once the inauguration of Sauer’s new instrument there and (in the second recital) the pre­ miere of Reger’s op. 127. Riesenfeld goes on to criticize Straube’s ‘brilliant playing’ [‘glänzende(s) Spiel’] not because it was too slow, but because it seemed to him ‘depen­ dent upon the intention of presenting to the public all the virtuosic possibilities of the organ, with its many and varied effects. This explains the exaggerated use of pianissimo, the choice of the bells, and the use of the “Femorgel” ... ’ [‘ ... abhängig von dem Vor­ satz, die Orgel in ihrer ganzen virtuosen Leistungsfähigkeit, mit ihren vielen und ver­ schiedenen Effekten dem Publikum vorzufuhren. So erklären sich Uebertreibungen in der Anwendung des Pianissimo, in der Wahl der Glöckchen und in der Mitwirkung der

120 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93. 94.

“Femorgel” ... ’]. Ibid. Riesenfeld directed these comments to Straube’s program in toto rather than to his performance of op. 127 specifically. ‘ ... die Grenze des Erlaubten in den (an sich nicht nur gestatteten, sondern sogar nöti­ gen, sogen, agogischen) Dehnungen und Verkürzungen von Taktteilen hier und da schon überschreitend.’ Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 21 October 1915, Neue Zeitschrift fur Musik, 28 October 1915, 343. ‘Die B-A-C-H-Fuge in der Wiedergabe durch Professor Meier aus München einige Wochen vorher schien mir freilich bei aller Derbheit des Spiels klarer aufgebaut als bei Straubes interessant-individuellerer Art. Auf dasselbe Konto waren jedenfalls auch die starken Schwankungen zwischen Orgel und Orchester im Händelkonzert zu setzen.’ Armin Seidl, review of Karl Straube and the Nürnberg Philharmonie Orchestra in Janu­ ary 1912 [?], Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 19 January 1912,65. Regarding the opening bars: ‘One must note the rhythm in the first three bars very pre­ cisely; the freedoms of ad libitum performance are inadmissible considering the grand­ ness of this music.’ [‘In den ersten drei Takten ist die rhythmische Gliederung auf das genaueste zu beachten; Freiheiten des ad libitum-Vortrages sind bei der Größe dieser Musik unstatthaft.’] Bach, Orgelwerke Band I f ed. Karl Straube, 31, note B. ‘ ... der überragende Orgelmeister, der damals schon internationalen Ruf genoß, war in jenen Kampfjahren nicht selten von selbstquälerischen Skrupeln heimgesucht, von Zweifeln an seiner primärmusikalischen Begabung, an der Gültigkeit seiner BachAuffassung und -Interpretation ... [M]ehr als er nach außen merken ließ, [ließ sich Straube] von der Kritik der Leipziger Beckmesser, die er später mit heiterer Gelassenheit quittierte, anfechten und nahm die Nörgler wichtiger als sie es verdienten ... [f] Dafür nur ein Beispiel: In seinem Streben nach möglichst plastischer Gestaltung der Bachschen Polyphonie durch sorgfältigste Nüancierung jeder Stimme hatte er sich unversehens ein weitgehendes rubato-Spiel angewöhnt, das nicht ohne eine gewisse Berechtigung zu stilistischen Bedenken herausforderte. Und da konnte man dann etwa im Konservato­ rium hören: “Waren Sie gestern Abend in Straubes Bach-Konzert? Der kann ja nicht einmal eine kurze Phrase im Takt spielen!” Die Tatsache des unrhythmischen Spiels ließ sich nicht abstreiten, und ich kämpfte lange mit dem Entschluß, Straube pflichtgemäß darauf aufmerksam zu machen. Als ich mir dann in einer vertrauten Stunde ein Herz faßte, war er, sich seiner rhythmischen Freiheit gamicht bewußt, zunächst sehr betroffen über diesen Hinweis; aber weit entfernt, ihn übel zu nehmen, bedankte er sich für den “Freundschaftsdienst”, kontrollierte selbst sein Spiel mit dem Metronom, und—charak­ teristisch für seine eiserne Selbstdisziplin—: von diesem Tage an zählte er monatelang beim Orgelüben laut, bis er sich rhythmisch völlig in der Gewalt hatte und jene kritischen Stimmen verstummen mußten.’ Stein, ‘Der Freund und Vorkämpfer Max Regers,* 144. ‘Bei gleichbleibender Einstellung des Schwellers nämlich wird durch fast unmerkliche Verzögerung oder Beschleunigung des Anschlags ein dynamischer—nicht etwa ein rhythmischer!—Effekt erzielt.’ Robert-Tornow, Max Reger und Karl Straube, 28. ‘ ... eine echte Straubesche Feinheit... ’ Ibid. ‘The "tl refer to the use of the swell box; however, one may accelerate the tempo somewhat (stringendo) at —-— ^ , and at one may slow it somewhat

Reger*s Music and Straube 's Musicianship, 1898-1918 121 (ritardando) (Tempo rubato).’ [‘Die —= ^3 : 33r=— beziehen sich auf den Gebrauch des Jalousieschwellers; doch kann man auch bei -*==3^ das Tempo etwas beschleuni­ gen (stringendo) und bei etwas beruhigen (ritardando) (Tempo rubato).’] Per­ haps more interesting than the content of the remark is the question of why Reger (Straube?) felt the need to include it in the first place. Perhaps he did not perceive this as part of common practice. 95. The slowing of the fugue tempi in op. 135b is the most obvious example. The final molto ‘ritenuto’ and ‘Adagio’ in the published version of op. 52/2 (mm. 171 and 174 respec­ tively) appear in Straube’s copy only as a pencil notation (i.e. not in the expected red ink) by Straube. A similar situation exists at the end of op. 40/1, where the final ‘sempre stringendo’, ‘ritenuto*, and ‘Adagio’ (mm. 187,189, and 190 respectively) appear in the publisher’s autograph and print, but not in Straube’s copy. Note that all three of these instances involve slowing at the end of fugues in Organo pleno. 96. The Sonata op. 33 provides, too, a unique example of overall timings, which of course bear directly upon questions of tempo. After the first movement, Straube noted in blue ‘4 M ’, which, even if it is an approximate timing, presupposes an extremely energetic tempo. At the end of the second movement he entered ‘10 M’, certainly a cumulative timing with the first movement. 97. ‘Straube hatte die Gewohnheit, bei auswärtigen Orgelkonzerten mehrere Tage, oft eine ganze Woche lang an der betreffenden Orgel sich einzuarbeiten, um allen ihren Möglich­ keiten wie auch der Akustik des Raumes gerecht zu werden. An jeder Orgel gestaltete er die vorzutragenden Werke wieder ganz neu.* Hasse, ‘Karl Straube als Orgelkünstler,’ 156. 98. XXXIX. Tonkünstler- Versammlung des Allgemeinen Deutschen Musikvereins, 12-15 June 1903. 99. ‘ ... so schön sie in den einzelnen Charakterstimmen und gewaltig in ihrer Tonfülle ist, doch der ganz modernen technischen Hilfsmittel zu entbehren scheint, die Reger beansprucht.’ Otto Lessmann, review of Karl Straube at the Münster/Basel on 14 June 1903, Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 3 July 1903, 449. Lessmann’s wording is curious: his conclusion about the absence of combination pistons etc. appears to be based purely on the aural impression of Straube’s performance. (Did Straube use registrants in Basel?) On the other hand, one would assume that an organ built in 1855 would in fact ‘lack ... very modem technical aids ... * 100. Johann Gottlob Töpfer, Die Theorie und Praxis des Orgelbaues, ed. Max Allihn, 2nd ed. (Weimar: Voigt, 1888; reprint, Fritz Knuf, 1972), 760-763. The instrument was exten­ sively rebuilt in 1908, which renovations included pneumatic action. See further Ernst Schiess, ‘Die neue Orgel im Münster zu Basel,’ in Die Orgel im Basler Münster (Basel: Schudel, 1956), 5-10. 101. ‘Karl Straube zur Erinnerung an den 14. Juni 1903.’ Of the five large organ works dedi­ cated to Straube (opp. 27, 30, 52/2, 73, and 127), the F-sharp minor Variations op. 73 is the only one demonstrably tied to a particular occasion. 102. ‘In Basel habe ich dann Max Reger gebeten, mir ein Orgelwerk ohne Bezugnahme auf evangelische Choräle schreiben zu wollen, damit ich in vorwiegend katholisch

122 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition orientierten Städten ein nicht kirchlich gebundenes Stück für mein Programm hätte, und schlug ihm als Form Variationen und Fuge über ein eigenes Thema vor. Das ist die Entstehungsgeschichte von op. 73 und die Lösung des Rätsels der Widmung.* Letter of 25 February 1944 in Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 173. 103. ‘Diese Ausgabe der Phantasie für Orgel über den Choral “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott” von Max Reger findet für ihre von der Originalfassung abweichenden Vortragsbe­ zeichnungen Rechtfertigung in der Tatsache, daß der Komponist dies frühe Werk seines Schaffens in einer nach gleichen Grundsätzen gestalteten Wiedergabe gelegentlich der deutsch-schweizerischen Tonkünstlerversammlung vom Jahre 1903 im Münster zu Basel auf der noch nicht umgebauten älteren Orgel der Kirche gehört hat. Seine Zustimmung zu dieser Auslegung der Vortragsangaben und zu den wenigen Änderungen in der Fas­ sung des Notentextes hat er nicht nur wiederholt im Gespräch, vielmehr auch dokumen­ tarisch niedergelegt durch die Widmung der fis moll-Väriationen über ein eigenes Thema (Op. 73) an den damaligen Interpreten seines Opus 27. ffi] Die Neuausgabe will einen Nachweis dafür erbringen, wie Regers Schaffen für die Orgel darstellbar sein kann auf einem Instrument, das der Überlieferung aus der klassischen Zeit des Orgelbaues ange­ hört, das aber keinerlei Eignung besitzt für ein Nachbilden von Klängen, entnommen dem Orchester der musikalischen Romantik und beeinflußt durch die Fülle der dyna­ mischen Möglichkeiten, die diesem Klangkörper innewohnen.’ Reger, Phantasie über den Choral 'Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott*op. 27, ed. Karl Straube, Preface. The English translation appears as above in the edition, without credit to a translator. 104. Haas employed mechanical action, cone chests, and a Barker machine in Basel. Ernst Schiess describes an organ which in its tonal character might have served well the music of Mendelssohn, Rheinberger, even Reger: ‘According to the taste of that time, the dis­ position was based heavily in fundamental tone, and the sound was of an extraordinary breadth. It was even somewhat massive because far too few bright mixtures were avail­ able to complement the overabundant inventory of fundamental stops. The various man­ uals were not, as with the classical organ, independent divisions. Rather, they constituted a dynamic progression from a strong and broad sounding Great organ down to the fourth manual with only a few delicate stops.* [‘Entsprechend dem Geschmack der da­ maligen Zeit war die Registerdisposition sehr grundtönig und der Klang des Werkes von außergewöhnlicher Breite, sogar etwas massig, weil zu dem überreichen Grundstim­ menbestand viel zu wenig aufhellende Mixturen vorhanden waren. Die verschiedenen Manuale erschienen nicht wie bei der klassischen Orgel als selbstständige Werke, sondern in progressiver dynamischer Abstufung vom sehr stark- und breitklingenden Hauptwerk bis zum nur mit zarten Stimmen besetzten 4. Manual.’] Schiess, ‘Die neue Orgel,’ 5-6. 105. Straube himself rightly pointed out that ‘of all Max Reger’s organ compositions, this op. 73 stands in spiritual [geistig] relation to those impressions derived from the postclassical music of the nineteenth century, particularly from Robert Schumann and Johannes Brahms.’ [‘Unter allen Orgelkompositionen von Max Reger steht dieses op. 73 am meisten in geistiger Beziehung zu den aus der nachklassischen Musik des 19. Jahr-

Reger's Music and Straube 's Musicianship, 1898-1918 123 hunderts empfangenen Eindrücken, insbesondere von Robert Schumann und Johannes Brahms.*] Letter to Hans Klotz in Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 173. 106. Note, too, that Haas’s Basel instrument did not offer the possibility of coupling Manual III (or Manual IV) either to the other manuals or to the pedal. Straube’s edition, by con­ trast, assumes all standard couplers. 107. See Hans Klotz’s Revisionsbericht to Reger, Sämtliche Werke, vol. 15, xii, in which he perpetuates Straube’s statements surrounding opp. 27 and 73 in order to lend historical legitimacy to a ‘classical’ Reger. On the 1938 edition, see further Chapters 3 and 4. 108. In many (most?) cases, the crescendo or decrescendo thus initiated could be interrupted at any point (‘Walze ab’) in order to activate the registration as chosen by the organist (i.e. hand registration of stops, or the particular content of a free combination). The placement of couplers in the sequence was, like the order of stops itself, not standardized. Some instruments did not include them at all, while others interspersed them throughout the Walze sequence. 109. For clarification of this distinction as it relates to Sauer, I am grateful to the late HansJoachim Falkenberg. Of course, any crescendo which proceeded by groups of stops (‘Stufencrescendo’) would necessarily have sounded more angular than one governed by the entrance of single registers in tum (‘Registercrescendo’), and some of Sauer’s devices were more successful than others in this respect. As Falkenberg speculates, Sauer’s choice of Stufencrescendi may have been related to economic concerns rather than aesthetic ones. Wilhelm Sauer’s instrument for the Stadtkirche/Bad Salzungen, for instance, employs a crescendo primarily in groups of stops. 110. ‘ ... [f]ür einen kunstgerechten Vortrag ... *Reimann, “Noch einmal über den Vortrag,” 146. 111. ‘Um zuerst von den Manualstimmen zu sprechen, so kann eine schwache Flötenstimme 8’ zuerst durch Hinzufugung von einer, zwei oder drei sanften Flötenstimmen, und zwar ebenfalls zu 8’ allmählich verstärkt werden. Erst dann würde Prinzipal 8’, dann Oktave 4’, dann Bourdon oder Gedackt 16’ hinzutreten. Eine weitere Verstärkung bringt eine Quinte 2 2/3 (zu Prinzipal 8’ gehörig), dann eine 8’ Zungenstimme, dann eine Oktave 2’, alles womöglich im Anschluß an noch weitere zwischen eingefugte 8’ und auch 4’ Flötenstimmen. Endlich kann dann eine Mixtur, dann Principal 16* und Trompete 16* nebst den übrigen zur Verfügung stehenden Stimmen hinzutreten, ffl] Damit hätte man dann ein fortissimo, welches durch Vereinigung mit dem zweiten Manuale wieder nur wenige oder mehrere oder alle Register gezogen hat. Vor allem ist zu beachten, daß keine Lücke im Fußtone stattfindet, so daß z.B. nicht 8’ mit 2’ ohne das vermittelnde 4’, des­ gleichen nicht 16’ mit 4’ oder gar 2’ ohne das vermittelnde 8’ resp. 8’ und 4’ verbunden wird, es sei denn, daß der Komponist damit im Solospiel besondere Effekte beabsich­ tigt (so registriert Volckmar, in seiner Phantasie op. 215 Bourdon 16’ mit Flöte 4’). fl[] Sowie im Manual der Achtfußton die Grundlage bilden muß und eine Zusammensetzung von Stimmen ohne 8’ nur ganz wunderliche Klangwirkungen erzeugen muß, so darf im Pedal der 16’ Ton niemals ganz fehlen. Er kann jedoch nicht wohl ganz allein gebraucht werden, sondern man verbindet ihn mit einem oder zwei 8* Registern, wodurch seine Töne erst recht zur Geltung kommen ... Abstufungen der Stärke werden im Pedal nach

124 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition demselben Prinzipe wie im Manual erreicht, nur daß man im Pedal nicht mit 8’, sondern mit 16’ anfängt, dann 8* hinzufugt, dann 4*, 2’, 32’ nebst den Hilfsstimmen. Die tiefsten Stimmen 16’ und 32’ erhalten erst Konsistenz, wenn sie mit höheren Grundstimmen 8’ und 4’ verbunden werden ... * Riemann, Katechismus der Orgel, 76-77. Might Reger (Straube?) have derived the idea for the initial registration of the Fantasy op. 135b (Man. Ill: 16’-4*, later revised to 16’-4*-2’) from Volckmar’s work cited here? 112. For instance, that pedal registrations should never be without 16-foot tone (Straube asks for none in the final phrase of the Benedictus op. 59/9 in his edition, rather only the Man. III/Ped. coupler at 8’; or that 16-foot tone in the pedal ought never be without an accompanying 8’ (Reger’s instruction in the final bars of the Kyrie eleison op. 59/7, with a pedal point at only 16’). 113. The sequence as given in Walcker’s contract makes no allowance for the placement of couplers. Were all couplers activated at the beginning? Was the Octavcoppel (= 4’?) I / Ped. a part of the sequence? 114. Manual I’s Octave 2* does not appear here, because Christian Scheffler had temporarily disengaged it due to winding problems with the Rauschquinte 2 2/3’. As with other rel­ evant organs, it will prove useful to compare the Walze sequence with the composition of the feste Kombinationen, at least insofar as these survive intact from the time. See further, for example, the composition of the Mezzoforte, Forte, Piano Pedal, and Mez­ zoforte Pedal settings in Bad Salzungen as cited in my Reger, Straube, and the Leipzig School ’s Tradition o f Organ Pedagogy: 1898-1948 (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1999), 403. 115. Hermann Busch has made available the twenty-two-stage Walze sequence at Berlin Cathedral, although it is not clear from his account that this sequence is the original one. Hermann J. Busch, ‘Die Wilhelm-Sauer-Orgel des Berliner Domes,’ Ars Organi 41 (1993): 231-238. Similarly, the anatomy of the Walze at St. Thomas/Leipzig, while restored by Christian Scheffler et al. to allow a smooth crescendo, is not demonstrably identical to that which Straube knew in 1908. 116. Hambraeus, ‘Karl Straube, Old Masters and Max Reger,’ 66. 117. Cadenbach, Max Reger und seine Zeit, 71-178. 118. His acid dislike of the Munich critic Rudolf Louis is a case in point. 119. Letter to Hans-Joachim Nösselt of 24 April 1943. Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 149-151. 120. This includes Straube *s choice of texts for many of Reger’s vocal works. It also includes the notorious instance of Reger’s major choral work Gesang der Verklärten op. 71, composed in the summer of 1903 and subsequently rejected by his Leipzig publisher Lauterbach und Kuhn on the advice of Straube. As is well known, Lauterbach’s refusal to publish op. 71 led eventually to the ruin of the relationship and Reger’s subsequent con­ tract with C. F. Peters. It also constituted perhaps the most serious strain on the RegerStraube friendship, a supposition rendered practically undemonstrable by the absence of correspondence during precisely this period. See e.g. Cadenbach, Max Reger und seine Zeit, 113 ff. It is a testament to the strength of the relationship that it survived this and other differences, but Reger’s wife was not as generous in her opinion of Straube’s inten-

Reger's Music and Straube 's Musicianship, 1898-1918 125 tions as was her husband. Upon Reger’s abandonment of his Requiem late in 1914, Elsa Reger wrote Gretel Stein in Jena: ‘Max has just come from Leipzig and tells me that he will not complete the Requiem, that Straube showed him he is not mature enough for the material, and now he cannot finish it. I’m completely beside myself. Straube with his cool, undermining intellect has robbed us of a splendid work.* [‘Eben kommt Max von Leipzig u. sagt mir, daß er das Requiem nicht fertig schreibt, Straube hat ihm bewiesen, daß er dem Stoff nicht gewachsen ist u. nun kann er es nicht fertig schreiben. Ich bin ganz außer mir. Straube mit seinem kühlen, zersetzenden Geist beraubt uns um ein herrliches Werk.’] Letter of 16 December 1914 in Max Reger, Briefe an Fritz Stein, ed. Susanne Popp, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes Elsa-Reger-Stiftung no. 8, (Bonn: Dümmler, 1982), 193. See also Elsa Reger’s subsequent letter of 19 December in the same vein, Ibid. 121. In an independent essay included as Appendix 9 of Reger, Straube, and the Leipzig School's Tradition, I have treated the issue of op. 135b in terms of the extant physical evidence (autograph, proofs, correspondence) relevant to Straube’s influence during the compositional process. 122. Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, ed. Susanne Popp; Popp, ‘Zur Quellenlage.’ 123. The Fantasy op. 40/1 is the only work of Reger about which Straube spoke specifically in terms of his own influence, at least according to the evidence available at present. Of the melismatic variation at bar 73, Straube wrote Hans Klotz in 1944: ‘In the first version of his Fantasy on “Wie schön leucht’t uns der Morgenstern” ... Reger had placed the chorale melody in the pedal during the course of the second verse [sic], and over it he composed an extremely insipid harmonic progression in three voices. I wrote him my opinion from Wesel, where he had sent me the manuscript for inspection, and at the same time I sug­ gested inclusion of a melismatic variation. He took up the idea in such a masterful way that no one would recognize this passage as a compositional afterthought. On the con­ trary, this variation is the zenith of the whole set for the most sensitive of auditors.* [‘Reger hatte in der ersten Fassung seiner Fantasie über “Wie schön leucht’t uns der Morgenstern” ... die Choralmelodie im Verlauf des zweiten Verses ins Pedal gelegt und darüber eine äußerst nichtssagende dreistimmige Harmoniefolge gesetzt. Ich schrieb ihm von Wesel, wohin er die Handschrift mir zur Einsicht gesandt hatte, meine Ansicht und machte gleichzeitig den Vorschlag, eine melismatisch geführte Variation einzufugen. Dieser Anregung ist er gefolgt und in so meisterhafter Weise, daß niemand diese Stelle als ein nachkomponiertes Gebilde erkennen würde, im Gegenteil, den Feinfühlenden unter den Zuhörern gilt diese Variation als Höhepunkt der ganzen Reihe.’] Letter of 28 June 1944 to Klotz, in Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 235. But only a few months later, he qualified his remarks in another letter to Klotz: “‘Wie schön leucht’t uns der Morgenstern” is not entirely successful. The insertion of the melismatic variation, which I occasioned, did not meld with the material around it to become an organic whole.* [“‘Wie schön leucht’t uns der Morgenstern” ist nicht ganz geglückt. Der Einschub der melismatischen Variation, den ich veranlaßt habe, ist mit dem ihm Vorhergehenden und Nachfolgenden nicht zu einer organischen Einheit geworden.’] Letter of 20 November 1944 to Klotz, in Ibid., 236-237.

126 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition 124. ‘Für Herrn Karl Straube hinzucomponiert.’ Reger added this in black ink at the end of the addendum. 125. But he would not have done so at the first performance on 14 June 1899, in any case. The four manuscript pages on which Reger supplies the additional five variations, while not dated, do carry a note by Reger, ‘here further at letter B in the printed score!’ [‘wieder im Gedruckten bei Buchstabe B mitzufuhren!’] This of course refers to the printed ver­ sion of op. 33, which did not appear until December 1899. Furthermore, Reger’s pagina­ tion for the addendum (23a-d) refers to the final page of the first edition rather than what would have been the appropriate manuscript page in Straube’s autograph copy. The situ­ ation would indicate, then, that Reger composed the extra variations in 1900 or later, well after op. 33 had been given its final form. There are no performance markings by Straube in the additional five variations, and the pages appear in general to have been subjected to less use than the rest of the manuscript. In other words, aside from the existence of the material per se, there is no unequivocal evidence that Straube ever performed the piece in the longer version, nor is it even possible to say with certainty that Straube requested the addendum. 126. See Straube’s letter to Fritz Stein of 29 November 1944, in Ibid., 214-216. Straube believed that the organ works opp. 7 through 30 were ‘influenced by the sound of old organs’ [‘ ... beeinflußt durch den Klang der alten Oigeln’], whereas in opp. 33 and 40 ‘the Situation turned in favor of the modern organ’ [‘ ... verändert sich das Bild zugunsten der modernen Oigel.’]. Straube apparently intended to draw a distinction between a clas­ sical way of composing, based more on strict linearity, and a modem, quasi-Wagnerian approach more dependent upon color and vertical textures. It is possible that he arrived at this idea, and hence his assessment of the Sonata's significance, only as a result of Orgelbewegung theory, which itself tended to speak of the difference between classical and modem style in terms of organ sound and compositional approach. On the other hand, the detailed interest Straube took in the work during its composition, and the fact that he chose it as his contribution to the Leipzig Conservatory’s Reger memorial con­ cert on 27 October 1916, speak for his belief in its significance early on. Reger himself voiced this sentiment shortly after the composition of op. 33, writing to Alexander Wil­ helm Gottschalg that ‘[T]he organ sonata op. 33, dedicated to you, could be called the ‘romantic’; it is completely different from my other organ things’ [‘Die Ihnen gewid­ mete Orgelsonate op 33 koñte man die romantische neñen; sie ist ganz abweichend von meinen anderen Orgelsachen ... ’]. Letter of 1 November 1899 to Alexander Wilhelm Gottschalg, in Popp, ed., Der junge Reger, 457. 127. Popp, ‘Zur Quellenlage,’ 32. She also suggests the need for a thoroughgoing comparative edition of the two autographs (Straube’s and the publisher’s) with the first edition. 128. It is perhaps significant in this regard that Reger never again titled an organ piece Ciacona, but compare for example the Chaconne of the Sonata in A minor op. 91/7 for solo violin. Might this practice be a conscious emulation of J. S. Bach’s use of the terms for these two media? 129. See for example the Symphonic Fantasy and Fugue op. 57 (fugue bar 5, omission of the second full bar of the fugai answer); the chorale prelude on Nun danket alle Gott

Reger’s Music and Straube ’s Musicianship , 1898-1918 127 op. 67/27 (bar 14 ff., omission of the second half of the Stollen); and the Variations and Fugue on an Original Theme in F-sharp minor op. 73 (variation bar 89, theme quasicantus firmus in the pedal, omission of the second full bar of the theme). Exceptionally, Reger noted the omission in the op. 57 fugue exposition: ‘The omission of this single bar from the theme is intended here!’ [‘Das Auslassen des einen Taktes aus dem Thema ist hier Absicht!’].

Chapter 3

Reger’s Music under Straube’s Editorship, 1903-1938

Intermittently over the course of their careers, both Reger and Straube con­ cerned themselves with what might broadly be termed the editing of music. By the turn of the century, such activity—the publication or reissue of a preexisting work by someone other than its composer—fell into one of three categories, each of which reflected certain attitudes about earlier rep­ ertories and their performance: (1) scientific editions of old music, many of them in the form of complete works (e.g. Bach-Gesellschaft) or collections (e.g. Guilmant’s Archives des Maîtres in France and Seiffert’s [et al.] Denk­ mäler Deutscher Tonkunst in Germany)1; (2) so-called ‘practical’ editions which were intended expressis verbis as a clarification of the composer’s intentions at the least (e.g. Straube’s editions of Reger from 1912 and 1919, or Hugo Riemann’s editions of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart) or as a recast­ ing of a composer’s language within the parameters of contemporary per­ formance norms at the most (e.g. Straube’s 1913 Bach edition or his 1938 edition of Reger’s op. 27, parallel to, say, Mozart’s treatment of Händel’s Messiah)', (3) arrangements of pieces for media other than those for which the music was originally intended (e.g. the transcriptions of Liszt, Busoni, and Reger, all of which may claim precedent in, for example, Bach’s organ chorales B WV 645-650 or the Vivaldi concerti arranged for organ).2Whereas neither Reger nor Straube became involved with scholarly editing, Reger had had occasion to observe firsthand Riemann’s editorial procedure during the 1890s, and during the same period he developed a lively interest in transcrip­ tions in the manner of Busoni, whom he had befriended in 1896.3 Straube, though, chose to occupy himself almost exclusively with those kinds of ‘practical’ editions for which he is still known today. Unlike Reger’s efforts in the field, Straube’s editions appeared over the course of nearly fifty years, and they are valuable not only because they supply details of changing per­ formance norms during that period, but also because the repertories Straube chose to edit presumably reflect his views about what was important to a systematically developing history of organ music. Before examining Straube’s editions of Reger’s music, it is important to consider the nature of the evidence they offer. Most organists know of 129

130 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Straube’s approach to Reger via the three editions he issued in 1912 (op. 59/7-9), 1919 (op. 85, and pieces from the collections opp. 65 and 80) and 1938 (op. 27). Taken together with Reger’s autographs and first publications, these documents yield a cross section of Straube’s attitudes over a relatively long period, and a number of authors have pursued such comparative analy­ sis as a way of demonstrating Straube’s understanding (or lack thereof) for what Reger was trying to do in his music.4Although this kind of study in fact sheds light on Straube’s performance style and his attitude toward Reger’s musical architecture, it has not sought to address the broader, and in some sense more significant, question of how Straube’s editions may or may not have influenced the perception of Reger’s music among other organists and audiences. Both issues— Straube’s own thinking, and the influence of that thinking on others—must be brought to bear upon the whole of his career, although application of the latter to Straube’s editorial practice begets a number of questions without clear answers. Who, for example, would have purchased and performed from Straube’s edition of Reger’s Benedictus op. 59/9 in 1912 (or in 1922, 1932, or 1942) rather than the equally available original?5 Would the prominent organists who had not been Straube’s pupils but who nevertheless were already playing Reger’s music by the century’s first decade—say, Hermann Dettmer or Paul Gerhardt—have taken notice of Straube’s versions, or would other groups have been more inclined to do so, like parish organists with limited training? Did Straube use his own Reger editions extensively in his teaching, and would anyone have followed his suggestions pedantically?6 Finally, if we conclude that, based on his edi­ tions, Straube misunderstood Reger’s musical intentions, how significant were those misunderstandings for the larger practice?7

Johann Sebastian Bach: Zweistimmige Inventionen als ‘Schule des Triospiels’fü r die Orgel bearbeitet von M ax Reger und Karl Straube 1903: Lauterbach & Kuhn/Leipzig (today, Bote & Bock/BerlinWiesbaden No. 17119) Very little is clear about the circumstances surrounding the genesis of Reger’s School o f Trio Playing, but it is certain that he had nurtured an interest in producing a pedagogical organ work as early as the mid 1890s. In November 1894, Reger had written to the English publisher Augener with ideas both for a ‘small book of 2-part and one of three-part canons, as a direct prepara­ tory exercise for J. S. Bach’s Inventions’ and for a set of pedal etudes, simi­ larly directed toward pupils who wished to advance to Bach’s organ works.8 It seems possible that such interest evolved in part from Reger’s own prob­ ably quite modest organ teaching duties at Wiesbaden, and it is clear that he came to lament the generally limited technical abilities of German organ­

Reger’s Music under Straube ’s Editorship, 1903-1938 131

ists even before his initial meeting with Straube.9 In any case, by 15 Janu­ ary 1900 he had turned to Gustav Beckmann, organist in Essen and chairman of the Society of Protestant Church Musicians for Rhineland-Westphalia,10 with the idea of composing organ studies. Reger wrote with characteristi­ cally unbridled zeal: D o y o u k n o w w h a t is la c k in g ? A sc h o o l o f p e d a l p la y in g is lack in g ! I f y o u w o u ld in fo rm m e o f th e v a rio u s te c h n ic a l fo rm s etc. e tc ., I w o u ld c o m p o se p e d a l e tu d e s; w e w o u ld c e rta in ly h a v e p u b lish e rs. D o c o n sid e r th e id ea! A ll th e re g u la r fig u re s, p a ssa g e w o rk etc. (w ith e x a m p le s fro m v a rio u s p ie c e s): it c o u ld b e a n e x c e lle n t w o rk . W ith fin g e rin g a n d p e d a lin g in d ic a tio n s. T h e n all th e e tu d e s in trio fo rm ; th a t w o u ld b e u n c o m m o n ly u se fu l. D o th e tw o o f u s w a n t to d o su c h a th in g ? I ’m fo r it!"

Beckmann added that ‘[f]or some reason the plan was then abandoned.’12 This is not entirely true, though, because Reger must have proposed a similar partnership with Straube sometime between the time of his correspondence with Beckmann and September 1902, when he could inform Straube: T h e H u g b ro th e rs [i.e. th e p u b lish e r] h a v e in q u ire d w h e n th e y m ig h t h a v e th e m a n u sc rip t o f th e p e d a l sc h o o l fo r o rg an . I a n sw e re d th e m , a b o u t th e b e g in n in g o f 1903. [ f | I re q u e st y o u r m e th o d ic a lly w e ll p re p a re d m a te ria ls fo r th e p e d a l sc h o o l n o la te r th a n th e e n d o f O c to b e r! I ’ll th e n c o m p o se th e e tu d e s a n d se n d th e m to y o u ! 13

It remains unclear both why Reger turned from Beckmann to Straube and what part Straube was to play in the project. (What are the Materialien to which Reger refers in this and subsequent correspondence?) Likewise, we do not know when or why Reger’s idea for an apparently original pedagogical work, which in 1900 was to include merely ‘examples from various pieces,’ yielded to an outright arrangement (Bearbeitung) of Bach’s Inventions BWV 772-786. In any case, Straube, apparently having agreed to work on the project sometime before the autumn of 1902, seems to have ignored it in the following months, much to Reger’s annoyance. Günter Hartmann has summarized Reger’s urgent subsequent requests for Straube’s ‘materials’ through the beginning of 1903, as well as pertinent portions of letters to others betraying his frustration.14 Much has been made of Straube’s negli­ gent behavior regarding the Pedalschule project, and it in fact seems that his apparent lack of interest may have constituted a significant strain on what in 1902 was still a young friendship. In fairness to Straube, it is possible that his failure to act on his friend’s expectations was due entirely to exter­ nal circumstances (the mechanics of Straube’s move from Wesel to Leipzig during precisely these months, for example). It is equally possible, though,

132 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

that Straube became genuinely dispassionate about Reger’s plans, especially if those plans were to include the addition of a third voice to Bach’s two-part Inventions, a practice with which Straube would not necessarily have wished his name associated.15That Straube seems never to have mentioned the Bach arrangement in his public or private writings, even though it became in effect his first editorial effort, supports this latter position. Likewise, there is no evi­ dence that the School o f Trio Playing was ever part of Straube’s Leipzig cur­ riculum. (Might Reger have drawn from it in his organ teaching at Munich in 1905?) Whatever the details of its evolution, the publication of 1903 bears the names of Bach, Reger, and Straube, and a short Preface (likewise undersigned by both Reger and Straube) underscores the pedagogical intent of the work: T h e ‘S ch o o l o f T rio P la y in g ’— 15 tw o -p a rt In v e n tio n s b y Jo h a n n S e b a stia n B a c h , to w h ic h a th ird v o ic e , fo r th e m o st p a rt freely im ita tiv e , is c o m p o se d — in te n d s a b o v e all to call th e b e g in n in g o rg a n ist’s a tte n tio n e m p h a tic a lly to th e o fte n g ra v e ly n e g le c te d [art of] trio p la y in g at th e org an . P ed al stu d ie s in th e fo rm o f trio s sh o u ld also p ro v e to b e th e rig h t m e a n s fo r th e a w a k e n in g a n d stre n g th e n ­ in g o f th e se n se fo r p o ly p h o n y , th e c e n tra l m a in sp rin g o f a tru e o rg a n sty le. T h e 15 In v e n tio n s w e re c h o se n fo r th is sch o o l b e c a u se a n y o n e w h o w ish e s to le a rn o rg an p la y in g m u st k n o w th e m exactly. T h e re fo re, n o n e w m u sic a l d e m a n d s are set fo rth , so th a t th e stu d e n t m a y tu rn h is e n tire a tte n tio n to th e m o st e x a c t p e rfo r­ m a n c e o f th e stu d ie s p o ssib le , ffl] T h e g u id in g p rin c ip le fo r th e th o ro u g h fin g e rin g a n d p e d a lin g in d ic a tio n s w as th e te c h n ic a l g o a l o f a n y o rg a n p e d a g o g y d e riv e d fro m artistic p o in ts o f v iew : th e a b so lu te in d e p e n d e n c e o f b o th h a n d s fro m e a c h o th e r as w ell as fro m th e p ed al. T h e rig h t h a n d a lw a y s h a s th e o rig in a l u p p e r v o ic e o n M an u a l I, th e p ed al alw a y s th e o rig in a l lo w e r v o ic e . T h e le ft h a n d p e r­ fo rm s th e n e w ly c o m p o se d th ird v o ic e o n M a n u a l II. flf] T h e in stru c tio n s g iv e n ab o v e th e p ed a l sy ste m in d ic a te th e u se o f th e rig h t fo o t, th o se u n d e r th e sa m e th e u se o f th e left foot. F o o t su b stitu tio n is in d ic a te d b y th e a b b re v ia tio n ‘l r ’ (le ftrig h t) an d ‘r l ’ (rig h t-le ft).16

These comments fail to address who was responsible for what aspects of the work, although it is likely that by 1903 both men commanded sufficiently significant reputations in their fields that one could assume the composition to be by Reger, the performance directives by Straube. In a tone still indica­ tive of his perturbation over Straube’s apparent lack of interest, Reger clari­ fied to Walter Fischer on 3 February 1904: T h e n e w th ird v o ic e (o n M a n u a l II) is c o m p le te ly b y m e. A b so lu te ly e v e ry th in g ! H e rr S trau b e d id o n ly th e fin g e rin g a n d p e d a lin g in d ic a tio n s. Y ou m a y sa y th a t, o f co u rse , in y o u r rev iew , as w ell as th e fact th a t th e w h o le id e a fo r th e S c h o o l o f T rio P la y in g is m in e .17

Reger’s Music under Straube’s Editorship, 1903-1938 133

Consequently, all other performance instructions (tempi, without metronome markings; dynamics; phrasing; there are no indications as to registration) stem from Reger, including the footnoted directive on the first page of music: ‘[Play] all mordents with small chromatic seconds beneath, on the other hand all trills with diatonic seconds above!’18 As might befit a work of primarily pedagogical character, Straube’s fin­ gering and pedaling instructions are unusually detailed. Already in 1904, Fischer had pointed out that ‘[t]here is in the entire work not a single pedal note which does not have a pedaling indication,’ undoubtedly reflecting Straube’s concern for the efficient performance of a pedal line that is often anything but idiomatic.19 Straube constructed his approach so as to rely only with the greatest infrequency on substitution (hands and feet), and he negoti­ ated fiendishly difficult passages with a generally conservative employment of the heel. Given his penchant for detail and his repeated use of alternate toes both in arpeggiateci and linear passages, it is surprising that Straube did not adopt at least a variant of Riemann’s signing system, expounded in the Technische Studien of over a decade earlier, which indicated to the player whether one foot was to pass over or under another.20 Rather, he retains the standard indications A = toe; “ = heel; i-------- 1= alternate heel-toe or toeheel of the same foot). Here follow representative examples.

Invention in A major BWV 783, pedal mm. 1-2

Invention in F minor BWV 780, pedal mm. 1-3

Invention in C minor BWV 773, pedal mm. 3-5 Figure 3.1

Bach/Reger/Straube: Schule des Triospiels Pedal passages with Straube’s pedaling indications

134 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Max Reger: Drei Orgelstücke (Kyrie eleison, Gloria in excelsis, Benedictus) Opus 59 Nr. 7-9, im Einverständnis mit dem Komponisten herausgegeben von K arl Straube 1912: C. F. Peters/Leipzig No. 3286 Eleven years after the composition of Reger’s Twelve Pieces op. 59, pub­ lished by C. F. Peters in two volumes of six pieces each, the same house issued Straube’s edition of the three quasi-liturgical pieces contained in the second volume.21 The 1912 publication was both practical and authorita­ tive: practical, because it presented an interpretation of Reger’s original text rather than a mere reissue of it; authoritative, because of Straube’s promi­ nent position among organists by 1912, his well-known close association with Reger, and the express qualification on the title page: ‘with the approval of the composer.’ It is no difficult matter to demonstrate that Straube’s edi­ tion departs, in certain cases radically so, from Reger’s own instructions with regard to tempi, phrasing, articulation, manual division, registration, and other performance directives. Indeed, certain writers have convincingly shown that Straube assumed an imperious interpretive freedom which often honored little more than the notes themselves.22 Due to lack of evidence (there is no prose preface to the edition, and nei­ ther Straube nor Reger appears to have spoken of it in writing), speculation as to Straube’s motives has proven both difficult and unfruitfiil. The obvi­ ous answer is certainly the most convincing, namely Straube’s frequently articulated and frequently cited belief that Reger’s notation did not ade­ quately express his intentions. Günter Hartmann has proceeded beyond these bounds, suggesting both that Straube acted malevolently under the prospect of financial gain and that his áltemative versions amount to a recreant disaf­ firmation of Reger’s music per se.23 It is difficult to take such speculation seriously, though. The character of Straube’s edition—and this applies to all his editorial efforts from 1903 through 1950—manifests a strongly assertive disposition, demonstrably opinionated and at times even high-handed with regard to virtually every humanistic discipline for over a half century. Even so, nothing in his behavior would suggest ill will toward Reger any more than his editions of Liszt and Bach would suggest malicious intent toward those composers, however one might argue that Straube in fact obscured the musical designs of all three men. Furthermore, if Straube had wished to debunk Reger’s music, it seems he merely would have assigned it a marginal place in his performing and teaching repertories as he did with, say, the organ pieces of Schumann and Mendelssohn. On the contrary, the fact that Straube made Reger the object of his editorial efforts alongside a small number of other Germanic repertories reflects strongly his view of Reger’s critical sig­ nificance for an organic history of organ music, a view both articulated in Straube’s writings and manifested in the design of his Leipzig teaching cur­

Reger’s Music under Straube 's Editorship, 1903-1938 135

riculum.24 Finally, one might even argue that a certain diplomatic respect for Reger’s integrity as a composer prevented the inclusion o f explanatory prefaces in Straube’s editions from 1912 and 1919. In any case, Straube expressed nowhere in his published writings the kind of sentiments he for­ mulated privately for Hans Klotz in 1944: Reger’s tendency to excessive performance directives compromised his actual intentions, or at least what Straube believed to be his intentions.25 However justified or unjustified Straube may have been in undertaking a ‘practical’ edition of Reger’s organ music— and in Straube’s thinking, the release of the op. 59 pieces during the composer’s lifetime seems to add a sense of urgency to that of legitimacy—he was attempting to demonstrate a premise which in itself is entirely honorable, viz., that clear elocution is in fact possible in music of seemingly tangled counterpoint and unremit­ ting chromaticism. Indeed, in 1912 Straube was apparently less interested in solving the purely technical problems inherent in Reger’s scores (he pro­ vides no fingering, and pedaling only in the Gloria in excelsis) than in show­ ing how the resources of the modem organ might contribute to a transparent rendering of the music. Along these lines, one might regard Straube’s edition as a well-meant effort to exonerate Reger’s music from charges of excess (Überladenheit), unintelligibility, and unnaturalness, criticism which was omnipresent by 1912 and to which Reger’s supporters like Straube made ref­ erence in their published writings.26 That Straube proceeded with a striking lack of regard for Reger’s own performance indications, though, does say something important regarding the undeniably disparate ways the two men thought about music. And when Straube claimed in 1941 that ‘he [Reger] recognized as a danger the immoderation and massiveness of an all too impressionable emotional sense,’27 it is difficult to imagine that such a con­ viction did not more properly originate in Straube’s aesthetic system than in Reger’s musical thinking. Registration Whereas Reger’s score restricted itself to a very general outline (manual division, pitch level, crescendi and decrescendi), Straube provided the organ­ ist with extremely detailed instructions as to the use of stops, couplers, and free combinations. He employed a nomenclature which in almost every instance accords with the disposition of Sauer’s instrument for St. Thomas Church/Leipzig (1908, Opus 1012, III/88; see Chapter 2).28 O f course, Sauer’s stoplists were not standardized to a point that would allow an organ­ ist to realize exactly Straube’s suggestions on any instrument, and Straube, who as an active performer had to contend with a variety of organs on a regu­ lar basis, would have known this. To the extent that performers paid heed to Straube’s indications at all, they would likely have had little choice but to

136 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition adapt them to instruments of more limited means than that of St. Thomas, no doubt with widely varying degrees of success.29 In certain instances, Straube recommended stop combinations which, aside from the fact that they circumvent Reger’s own suggestions, yield extremely interesting aural results. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 show the initial bars of op. 59/7 in Reger’s original publication and in Straube’s 1912 version. Reger had envisioned his two-bar theme (two falling fifths joined by a chro­ matic dotted figure) first expounded alone on Manual II at 8’, then accom­ panied with 8’ and 4’ stops on Manual III.30 With the third statement in bar 5, he aslcs that the player retire entirely to Manual III at 8’. By implication, no couplers (at least no manual couplers) are engaged. Straube, on the other hand, played the theme’s initial statement on Manual III (Gedackt 8’), then transferred it to the coupled Manual II in bar 3 (Gedackt 8’, plus Manual Ill’s Gedackt 8’ and Aeoline 8’). This allows the second statement both to pre­ dominate over the accompanying voices and to be somewhat richer in sound than the first statement, without the need for octave doublings (i.e. 4’ sound) in the accompanying voices. Note too that Manual Ill’s string-based sound (and hence its swell capability) is allowed to penetrate the entire texture from bar 3 forward (couplers III/II, III/I, and III/Ped.). In bar 5, Straube retained Reger’s suggestion to play on Manual III, but he used the combination action to engage an entirely new (and entirely unorthodox) timbre with manual sound based not, as Reger indicates, at 8’, but at 16’: Gedackt 16’, Aeoline 8’, Voix céleste 8’, Gedackt 8’, Quinte 2 2/3’.31 Particularly with the distanc­ ing effect of the closed swell shades, this registration does yield a fascinating result, at least on the St. Thomas organ, and it must have been this kind of original thinking which caused reviewers to comment so consistently and so positively on Straube’s unique handling of organ sound. The success of such effects was and is dependent, of course, upon Sauer’s particular con­ cepts of voicing. But one still might lament the fact that such an adventure­ some approach is seldom if ever heard in Reger performances today, even if it does seem to contradict the more conservative stance Reger himself pro­ pounded.32 Whereas Reger seems to have approached registration in a more orthodox fashion—the very basic indications he included do not suggest that sophis­ ticated sound effects were important to him—Straube was certainly think­ ing of a kind of orchestration that would exhaust the tonal possibilities of Sauer’s best instruments. Only a year after the publication of his Reger edi­ tion, Straube was requesting an ‘instrumentation’ [Instrumentierung] rather than a ‘registration’ for the opening of Bach’s Praeludium BWV 536, and his instruction in Reger’s Benedictus op. 59/9 to play the soprano voice in bar 8 ff. ‘quasi Violino Solo’ intimates the same sort of thinking.33 Given what we know of Reger’s sustained efforts to distance himself from an aes­ thetic preoccupied with orchestral color (Strauss, Mahler, and others who,

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), mm. 1-10

Reger's Music under Straube fs Editorship, 1903-1938 137

Figure 3.2

138

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 1-9 Figure 3.3

Reger’s Music under Straube ’s Editorship, 1903-1938 139

he believed, misunderstood Wagner) and to ally himself instead with a phi­ losophy of composition which expressly affirmed the primacy of musical substance, it should not surprise that he would avoid elaborate registration suggestions in his organ music. By all indications, it was not Reger’s princi­ pal concern to make his organ pieces a vehicle through which modem instru­ ments might be showcased, but rather to forge a philosophical link with the art of older German masters, a link defined by certain formal concerns, the elaboration of motives in a contrapuntal framework, and so on.34 From none of this does it follow necessarily that he would have opposed Straube’s pro­ gressive approach to registration: on the contrary, he seems to have been uni­ formly impressed with his friend’s interpretive ideas. But in Reger’s mind, the color overlay to any piece was absolutely unessential to its integrity, as is clear from his trenchant statement that ‘any composition is good which can be played completely without color. In order to paint, one first must learn to draw.’35 In the end, it is probably safe to say that Reger was more immedi­ ately concerned with musical substance, Straube with public reception.36 Aside from relatively straightforward issues of timbrai effect, Straube’s suggestions for the placement of register crescendi intersect certain formal concerns of the music, since his ideas about the climax of important phrases are sometimes at variance with Reger’s. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 present, again, a portion of the Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 as it appears in Reger’s original and in Straube’s edition. This is the second of two large crescendi in the Kyrie, and Reger called for its climax (Organo pleno) to coincide with the arrival of the thick chords in bar 32. He achieved this by stating the principal theme on Manual II with accompaniment on Manual III, then moving both hands to Manual I as the same theme ascends sequentially by whole steps in the pedal. Characteristically, Reger asked that the effect of the crescendo (from pianissimo to full organ in four bars’ time) be enhanced by an increase in tempo (‘molto stringendo’) and in tension (‘agitato’). At the diminuendo, the player should relax correspondingly. Straube, though, placed the top of the crescendo not at bar 32, but rather at the downbeat of bar 34 with the obvious intent that the climax of the phrase should agree with the top of the pedal’s motivic sequence. Straube dispensed, too, with Reger’s suggestions regard­ ing manual division, asking instead that the entire crescendo be negotiated with the right hand on Manual II, the left on Manual I (coupled with Manual II). O f course, the retention of the right hand on a subsidiary manual molli­ fies the effect of the crescendo, which Straube in any case allows to proceed only through f f f (i.e. full organ minus the most powerful stops of the last Walze stages). In turn, the decrescendo at bar 34 (fff to pp in a single bar) is assisted as the left hand retires to Manual II. Also absent from Straube’s version are Reger’s instructions regarding stringendo and agitato. Instead, Straube slowed the music where the texture thickens at bar 32 (‘Sostenuto’ [j) = 66]), and his ritenuto in bar 34 continued that effect, so that the player

140 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), mm. 27-35 Figure 3.4

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 27-34

Reger’s Music under Straube ’s Editorship, 1903-1938 141

Figure 3.5

142 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

would arrive at a significantly more relaxed pace than the ‘Più andante’ ( i ' = 76) of bar 28. O f course, the most important disparity here is the placement of the crescendo itself—Reger positioned its climax at the top of the accompaniment (manual) line, Straube at the top of the motivic (pedal) line—but Straube’s version also constitutes a smoother, generally less agi­ tated approach than Reger suggested. These kinds of modifications are typi­ cal of Straube’s editorial freedoms, and they clearly betray ways of thinking about musical movement that tend to suppress the stormy, sometimes even irrational quality of Reger’s music.37 It is important, however, to underscore here the attendant observation that it was precisely this interpretive style, far removed from a slavish realization of Reger’s notation, which won Straube admiration among the reviewers of the period and through which much of Reger’s organ music was introduced to audiences from the beginning. Tempo In a letter to Wilibald Gurlitt immediately following Reger’s death in 1916, Straube laconically described Reger’s style as ‘always rich, direct, but untamed.’38 Insofar as he sought a positive public reception for what was still in 1916 a new and aurally challenging musical style, Straube also aimed at a certain domestication—to extend his own language— of Reger in order to render the music palatable to contemporary taste (or, more precisely, to what Straube perceived as contemporary taste among auditors of organ music). Assuming that Straube was a good judge of what the average (or above aver­ age?) listener could digest—his reviews and general success as a performer give every indication that he was—then the particular character of both his playing and his editions says as much about contemporary bon goût as it does about his own convictions and assumptions. In any case, Reger’s tempo indications may be the most obvious example of the ‘untamed’ character of which Straube speaks, and many writers have pointed out both Reger’s own statements on the subject and the disparity between his and Straube’s tempi in the latter’s editions.39 As is both well established and well known, Straube’s metronome indica­ tions in his 1912 edition are uniformly slower than those of Reger, in most cases approximately twice as slow. In addition, Straube altered, deleted, or supplemented other instructions as to tempo or tempo rubato, and these, too, lean categorically toward a manner of performance which is calmer and more considered than Reger’s own notation suggested.40 That such inconsis­ tencies have received a great deal of attention among writers and perform­ ers over the last decades must be in part related to the fact that the particular character of those inconsistencies parallels certain personal qualities of the two men which had long before settled into stereotypes.41 In other words, it is not difficult—nor is it altogether misguided—to relate the character of

Reger’s Music under Straube ’s Editorship, 1903-1938 143

Straube’s Reger edition to a personality dominated by cool, calculated intellectualism, just as it is easy to imagine Reger’s original Notenbild as a pro­ jection of a brute creative force driven more by genial spontaneity than by considered theory. Critical inquiry, though, has seldom proceeded beyond the repeatedly substantiated details of Straube’s editorial license, the incon­ gruity of his performance indications (especially his tempi) with Reger’s original, and the composer’s statements about tempo made both publicly and privately, which recommend a highly subjective approach to metronomizations ‘as absolutely the fastest permissible tempi with regard to “speed” ... if the performance is not to suffer at the cost of clarity.’42 The greatest weak­ ness of arguments built merely upon these observations is their demonstrated tendency to degenerate into either partisan rhetoric against Straube’s actions or panegyrical apologia in support of them. Straube’s detractors point out that his freedoms go far beyond anything Reger could have intended and that they betray a false understanding of the musical architecture. His supporters, on the other hand, praise him for having documented the intricacies of his own performance style while at the same time clarifying Reger’s music. Per­ haps the most intelligent approach to this problem is the work of Hermann Wilske, who seeks to develop an historically responsible attitude to Reger’s notation based on what were contemporary expectations with regard to any printed score, and on accounts of the composer’s own performances.43 Not unconvincingly, Wilske argues that there is good reason to regard Reger’s tempi as the extreme parameters of a tempo rubato already assumed. From this, he offers a very imaginative critique of Straube’s editorial policy based not on the premise that Straube obscured the form or that he diverged signifi­ cantly from what Reger seemed to request, but rather that he communicated a kind of precision contrary to the purposes of the original notation, a misun­ derstanding unique neither to Straube nor to other organists: S tra u b e ’s v e rd ic t th a t R e g e r h a d b e e n d e n ie d th e a b ility to c o m m u n ic a te h is id e a s in h is n o ta tio n led, in th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f th e o rg a n m u sic , to a d e n ia l o f th e v a lu e o f in te rp re ta tio n a s it re la te s to fle x ib le te m p o . S u c h a le v e lin g e ffe c t, w h ic h a b o v e all c a rrie s w ith it c o n se q u e n c e s fo r th e a tm o sp h e ric im p re ssio n o f R e g e r ’s o rg a n m u sic , h a s m a in ta in e d its e lf v ia th e S tra u b e sc h o o l w ith a sto u n d in g re sis­ ta n c e th ro u g h th e p re se n t day. In th e c a se o f te m p o in d ic a tio n s, th is le v e lin g e ffe c t a p p lie s to a n a re a w h ic h fre e s its e lf fro m a b so lu te n u m e ric a l fix a tio n o n ly w h e n m e tro n o m iz a tio n s a re g iv e n as e x tre m e p a ra m e te rs, ju s t as R e g e r h im s e lf d id a t tim e s. [ f | In th e ir to ta lity , R e g e r’s in d ic a tio n s are n o th in g le ss th a n th e a tte m p t to p ass a lo n g , w ith in e v ita b ly in a d e q u a te g ra p h ic m e a n s, th o se e x tre m e ly d iffe re n ti­ a te d tim b ra i a n d e n e rg e tic p ro c e sse s in h e re n t in h is o w n p la y in g . E x p re sse d m o re sim ply, m a n y d iffic u ltie s o f re c e p tio n fo r R e g e r’s m u sic in its tim e are d u e to th e m is u n d e rsta n d in g o f in te rp re te rs, w h o c o n c e iv e d R e g e r ’s in stru c tio n s m o re as rig id q u a n titie s a n d n o t as th e re le a se o f im a g in a tiv e p ro c e sse s.44

144 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Although Wilske’s language is sometimes difficult to parse, it seems clear that, for him, the weakness of Straube’s tempo indications lies not so much in the numerical value of the metronome markings per se as in the great detail of the whole, which by the very fact of its precision tends to discourage the kind of interpretive freedom Reger desired. O f course, the interpreter/ performer Straube did use Reger’s score as a point of departure for ‘the release of imaginative processes,’ and from this perspective it is not surpris­ ing that Straube invoked contemporary support for his interpretive initiative both from his auditors and from Reger himself. But insofar as any set of minute instructions implies the following of those instructions in an equally elaborate way, the editor Straube in theory disaffirmed the kind of improvisa­ tory flexibility that he presumably attempted to communicate in practice. Phrasing and articulation Characteristically, Reger restricted himself to relatively few phrasing indi­ cations (usually the outer voices of the texture, or a thematic inner voice), and Straube’s treatment amounted largely to a supplementation which in most cases left Reger’s original intact. He did not, for instance, alter Reger’s unusual upbeat phrasing of the pedal figures in bars 16 through 18 of the Kyrie eleison,

Figure 3.6

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), pedal mm. 16-18

nor did he change it upon its reappearance later in the piece at bars 30 through 34.45 Straube’s detailed phrasing, though, has the effect of (1) emphasizing the essentially polyphonic nature of the music, (2) breaking into shorter units what seem to be for Reger extended passages of uninter­ rupted forward motion, and (3) sharpening the sense of upbeat phrasing pat­ terns in the manner of Hugo Riemann. Any further attempt to fashion a dogmatic system from Straube’s method is hardly possible, but the follow­ ing examples should sufficiently illustrate the character of that method. Of course, any discussion of phrasing necessarily intersects all the means by

Reger’s Music under Straube’s Editorship, 1903-1938 145

which phrasing is accomplished, and here, too, Straube’s particular approach had as much to do with issues of dynamics, tempo modification, and manual division as it did with articulation. With these issues, as with those of phras­ ing, a thorough study must await the kind of consistent comparative analysis that might accompany a good critical edition. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show Reger’s first diminuendo from Organo pleno in the Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 and Straube’s version of the same. Unlike Reger, Straube chose to culminate the crescendo with the eighth notes in bar 20 rather than the sixteenth notes in bar 18 (cf. above his treatment of the cre­ scendo from bar 28 ff.), although the effect of that climax is less extreme than Reger had wished ( f f on Manual II instead of the full organ on Manual I). In bars 19 and 20, Straube imitated Reger’s over-the-bar pedal phrasing in the manuals, and he added a new pedal slur in bar 20, showing that the pedal b-flat on the first beat properly belongs both to the former phrase (for which it constitutes the end of a thematically-derived sequence) and to the new one (for which it initiates a statement of the principal theme, displaced by an octave).4®As previously noted, Straube’s preference for upbeat figures is characteristic of his general approach, as is his tendency to a more or less consistent phrasing of inner voices. Abetting his phrasing here, too, is an atti­ tude toward tempo that at once contradicts Reger’s (whereas Reger becomes more agitated with the approach of Organo pleno, Straube becomes calmer and more expansive) and renders practically inaudible the transition from sixteenth- to eighth-note motion in bars 19 and 20 (‘Largo molto = 76’ at bar 18, slowing to ‘Più andante J' = 69’ at bar 20). Figure 3.9 shows Straube’s version of the fugai exposition in the Gloria in excelsis op. 59/8. As was typical for his treatment of strictly contrapuntal pas­ sages, Reger provided no phrasing at all (he indicated merely ‘ben legato’), whereas Straube supplied copious instructions in that regard, including the singling out of the tenor entrance (bar 26 ff.) on Manual I. Again, Straube’s concept is governed by the primacy of the upbeat. O f course, it is difficult to know what Straube’s slurs do or do not mean about articulation. To say that their presence necessarily implies a consistent articulation (although the figure i.

]/ in bar 25 certainly calls for it) is just as problematic as it is to maintain that Reger’s seemingly categorical ben legato necessarily excludes it. On the one hand, Straube himself made no statement on the precise meaning of slurs, and to a certain extent it is quite possible to delineate phrases by means of a sophisticated tempo rubato alone. In any case, contemporary accounts of Straube’s playing indicate his thoroughgoing use—for some, his excessive use—of tempo modification. Furthermore, Straube’s occasional employ­ ment of certain articulation marks in conjunction with slurs would suggest

OS

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), mm. 18-23 Figure 3.7

Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 18-23

Reger*s Music under Straube *s Editorship, 1903-1938 147

Figure 3.8

00

Reger: Gloria in excelsis op. 59/8 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 22-31

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Figure 3.9

Reger’s Music under Straube ’s Editorship, 1903-1938 149

that, for him, phrasing had little to do with (or at least was a larger issue than) articulation.47 Finally—and this is important for anyone who wishes to apply Straube’s phrasing to modem organs—the effect of any kind of articulation depends substantially upon the chosen stops and their voicing. Whatever Straube had in mind, it seems unlikely that he would have striven for stark articulation at a relatively leisurely J = 88 (so-called ‘Allegro moderato,’ but characteristically slower than Reger’s original ‘Più mosso J = 80’) with mezzoforte registration.48 And as for the intent of the composer, one cannot maintain that Straube’s phrasing amounts to a con­ tradiction of Reger’s simple instruction ben legato, since Reger’s generous use of that term in a variety of contexts (with and without phrasing slurs, in homophonie and polyphonic textures) seems to say little or nothing about articulation within an established legato framework.49 Regardless of the precise realization of Straube’s slurs in performance, one might reasonably argue that such consistent phrasing throughout the texture implies a polyphonic linearity which in many cases is quite absent. Similarly, it is not unreasonable to imagine that Reger’s opposed tendency (i.e. not to phrase individual lines) reflected his awareness that, on the whole, he was not composing the same kind of counterpoint as Bach or Straube’s alte Meister (all of whose music received the same brand of phrasing treat­ ment in 1904, 1907, and 1913 as did Reger’s in 1912).

Max Reger: Präludien und Fugen f ü r die Orgel, herausgegeben von Karl Straube 1919: C. F. Peters/Leipzig No. 3455 Three years after the composer’s death, Straube issued a number of Reger’s incidental pieces under the collected title Präludien und Fugen. The 1919 publication was similar to the 1912 edition in that it (1) comprised a number of relatively brief pieces from Reger’s earlier years (1901-1904); (2) offered copious suggestions for tempo, phrasing, articulation, and registration based on the stoplist of the St. Thomas organ;50 and (3) lacked a prose preface. Presumably, the choice of pieces reflected what Straube felt useful (or at least marketable) to parish organists: Toccata and Fugue in D minor/major op. 59/5-6; Improvisation and Fugue in A minor op. 65/5-6; Prelude und Fugue in D minor/major op. 65/7-8; Toccata and Fugue in E minor/major op. 65/11-12; Prelude and Fughetta in E minor op. 80/1-2; Toccata and Fugue in A minor op. 80/11-12; and the entire collection of Four Preludes and Fugues (C-sharp minor, G major, F major, E minor) op. 85. During the previous year, Straube had been elected as Gustav Schreck’s successor in the cantorate of St. Thomas School, and the 1919 Reger edition stands at the

150 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

very end of his career as a performing organist. It also represents Straube’s final editorial statement based on the standard of Wilhelm Sauer’s organs.51 Straube applied the same editorial standard to his 1919 publication as he had in 1912, and a comparative analysis with Reger’s original easily dem­ onstrates that he still felt justified in assuming the kinds of interpretive free­ dom he had promulgated earlier in the decade with Reger’s own approval. As in 1912, Straube took liberties with every aspect of performance except fingering and pedaling. Consequently, issues of tempo, agogic accent, regis­ tration, manual division, phrasing, and articulation are virtually if not alto­ gether identical in the two editions. To the extent that we may regard both publications as faithful documents of Straube’s performance style—and in the strictest sense they merely suggest how he would have played on the St. Thomas instrument, not, say, on more traditional yet quite relevant organs like that of Basel Münster or even Wesel Cathedral52—then we can say with some certainty that the particulars of his musical thinking, at least con­ cerning Reger’s style, had solidified by 1912 and remained much the same thereafter.53 Furthermore, despite whatever justified or unjustified notoriety Straube’s editorial policy has earned him in recent decades, it is not without significance for reception history that he and (presumably) others must have felt another ‘practical’ Reger edition organici Lipsiae modo to be warranted on financial as well as aesthetic grounds. But with this edition as with others, it is difficult if not impossible to know how Straube’s ideas came to bear on the larger practice except via the obvious medium of his pupils. And even if Hermann Wilske’s archival research54 had been brought to bear upon Straube’s 1919 effort as it was upon the 1912 edition, one cannot infer, from the mere fact of a successful sales record, the extent to which Straube’s ideas were applied by the organists who purchased his publications.55 Because Straube’s method was essentially unchanged in 1919, and because the particulars of both the 1912 and 1919 editions await a systematic com­ parison with Reger’s original, issues of registration, tempo, phrasing, and articulation will not resurface here. In his 1991 monograph on Straube, Günter Hartmann repeated and developed the observations already advanced by Wolfgang Stockmeier in 1974 and Bengt Hambraeus in 1987/1993, par­ ticularly with regard to Straube’s version of Reger’s Toccata op. 59/5.56 Again, the upshot of these arguments—that Straube obscured Reger’s inten­ tions and misunderstood certain architectural features of the music—is not illegitimate. The most incisive criticisim may in fact be that the very rep­ etition of the argument, particularly with Hartmann’s adamantine tone,57 is quite disproportionate to the obviousness of the facts supporting it. Of course, what is really interesting is not the divergences per se: Reger’s own performances appear to have been governed by a highly unpredictable subjectivity which frequently had little to do with the printed score58; fur­ thermore, any organist could ignore Straube’s instructions entirely, follow

Reger’s Music under Straube’s Editorship, 1903-1938 151

them slavishly, or fall somewhere between those two extremes. But if Reger intended that his relatively clean notation (clean, that is, in comparison to the exhaustive procedures of editors like Straube, Riemann, and even Biilow) should allow for the kind of subjective freedom he himself adopted, then it must be more to the point to regard the editions of 1912 and 1919 as a codi­ fication of that freedom rather than as any documented disagreement with the composer. In other words, the real problem with Straube’s Reger editions lies not in their mechanical differences with the original notation, but rather in precisely how the codification of an admittedly subjective practice affects that subjective practice. In order to give Straube the benefit of the doubt, one would need to maintain that he merely wished to show how Reger’s music might (not should) be interpreted, since the original notation does not offer a clear picture of Reger’s own flexible music making. Following this line of reasoning, what the organist really ought to do lay for Straube not in the par­ ticulars of his publications, but rather in certain general principles common to all the pieces he edited: one ought to register creatively, according to the capabilities of the instrument at hand; one ought to phrase polyphonically and thoroughly; and one should almost always realize tempi more slowly than Reger suggests.59 The details are left to the individual. Against this, though, it is possible to construct a portrait of Straube as a teacher whose demands in the studio were as exacting as those in his editions (see Chapter 4), so that his students had little if any opportunity to exercise the kind of subjective latitude supposedly encouraged by the very nature of the musical material.

Max Reger: Phantasie über den Choral ‘Ein feste Burg ist unser G ott’ Opus 27 herausgegeben von K arl Straube 1938: C. F. Peters / Leipzig No. 4440 Straube’s version of Reger’s op. 27 was the last edition of organ music (by Reger or anyone else) issued during his lifetime, and it differed markedly from its predecessors of 1912 and 1919. Figure 3.10 shows the first page of music with Straube’s outline for registration. While Straube perpetuated his earlier habit of providing exact registra­ tions, the nomenclature in 1938 no longer accorded with the St. Thomas organ, but rather with Sauer’s instrument at the Leipzig Conservatory, rebuilt in 1927 as Opus 1343.60 Second, he provided an explanatory Preface in German and English (translated by whom?), the principal thrust of which was an attempt to demonstrate that Reger’s organ compositions can be played on an instrument which belongs to the tradition of the classical period of organ

152

Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale *Ein *feste Burg ist unser G ott* op. 27 Edition Karl Straube (1938), mm. 1-7

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Petforming Tradition

Figure 3.10

Reger’s Music under Straube’s Editorship, 1903-1938 153

building, but which has absolutely no capacity for producing tone-colours taken from the orchestra of romantic music, and influenced by the abundance of dynamic possibilities which such an orchestra possesses. In order to attain the desired end, the gradually merging dynamic changes indicated by the composer had to be abandoned in favour of a registration based on the use of successive blocks of contrasting volume and tone-colour. Such a simplification gives strength to the construction of the Fantasia, and the total impression achieved—simple and self-contained—makes clear the inner relationship of Reger’s art to the com­ positions of the great masters of former periods of German organ composition.61 Third, Straube chose to edit a major work of Reger—one which he regarded as important to the composer’s development—rather than a collection of incidental pieces. Fourth and finally, Straube supplemented his detailed instructions regarding registration, phrasing, and articulation with fingering and pedaling suggestions. As in Reger’s original, Straube provided no metro­ nome indications in 1938. Moreover, he retained Luther’s text in conjunction with the cantus firmus throughout, and he printed—no doubt to underscore the unique nature of his authority—Reger’s dedicatory ‘To his dear friend Karl Straube’ [‘Seinem lieben Freunde Karl Straube’]. The first two points are obviously related. Whatever musical legitimacy Straube’s edition of op. 27 may or may not claim, it is impossible not to regard it as a kind of practical apologia for the validity of Reger’s organ music in the face of what was by 1938 a widespread and protracted discus­ sion about the wahre Orgel and wahre Orgelmusik.62 Straube’s argument here for a modernized (i.e. de-romanticized) Reger, and the relationship of that argument to Sauer’s Conservatory organ, is particularly curious on two fronts. Earlier in his preface to op. 27, Straube had maintained that his ‘departure from the original marks of expression’63 was justified in that Reger had been pleased with Straube’s performance of op. 27 on 14 June 1903 ‘in a similar manner’64 on the Friedrich Haas organ o f the Basel Münster. As already noted in Chapter 2, though, Haas’s 1855 instrument possessed nothing like the mechanical apparatus Straube continued to assume in 1938 (e.g. four free combinations), nor was it exactly ‘an instrument which belongs to the tradition of the classical period of organ-building.’65 On the other hand, if one accepts Straube’s argument, it is even more dif­ ficult to imagine why he chose Sauer’s Leipzig Conservatory organ as the basis for his edition, since its 1927 renovation—in accordance with a new specification designed by Straube himself—was governed expressly by eclectic, not classical, ideals. On 2 October 1927, Günther Ramin opened the Third Conference for German Organ Art (Dritte Tagung für deutsche Orgelkunst in Freiberg in Sachsen) with the inaugural recital on the refur­ bished instrument. He included these expository remarks on the back of the program sheet:

154 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

The concert organ of the State Conservatory—completely rebuilt and enlarged by the firm of Sauer a. d. O. (owner, Dr. h. c. Oskar Walker [recte: Walcker])—is meant, in the present arrangement of its stops, to represent an organ type which follows the ideas of the previous congresses for German organ art. As such, it satisfies the tonal premises for the reproduction of the great organ music from the seventeenth century and of J. S. Bach, as well as for the performance of later con­ cert music for the oigan, especially the works of Reger and contemporary com­ posers. With reference to the organ of the Baroque era, the individual keyboards were designed in the manner of the old Hauptwerk (Manual I), Rückpositiv (Manual II), and Oberwerk (Manual III). On the other hand, the builders made generous allowance for modem devices (Crescendowalze, swell shoe, free com­ binations, couplers etc.).66 Because recordings of the instrument either do not exist or have not come to light, it is difficult to say how any repertory might have sounded at the Conservatory after the late 1920s. But because the 1927 organ was Oskar Walcker’s extension and modification—not replacement—of Wilhelm Sauer’s 1909 instrument, it would be remarkable if it in fact had ‘absolutely no capacity for producing tone-colours taken from the orchestra of romantic music.’67 On the other hand, Walcker’s ideals in 1927 bore little resemblance to Sauer’s in 1909, and the weakness of the new instrument probably lay in its near inability to accommodate any music in a veiy satisfying way. Jahnn certainly meant something like this in his letter of 12 September 1927 to Christhard Mahrenholz: Now to the Freiberg conference. Perhaps you have already read my essay in the introductory volume and perceive by way of implication that I suppose the future of the organ to lie in the preference for synthesized tonal possibilities ... I would even maintain that the less the disciples of the organ understand about mathemat­ ics and tonal function, the more open is their feeling for every combination [i.e., of mutations etc.]. I read with some horror the disposition of the new organ at the Leipzig State Conservatory. Translated into Sauer’s scaling practice, this is just what I hate unto death.61 Because of its highly visible position at a leading musical institution and because its dedication opened the Freiberg conference, the ‘new’ Leipzig Conservatory organ incited a good deal of discussion as to the merits of eclecticism.69 But whereas Jahnn issued a negative judgment, other promi­ nent organists were more optimistic. This was the case, for example, with the Swiss musicologist Jacques Handschin, who must have been afforded an unusually wide-ranging perspective in his study with Reger (Munich, 1905-06), Straube (Leipzig, 1906-07) and Widor (Paris, 1908). In his review of the Freiberg conference for the Zeitschrift fu r Musikwissenschaft, Hand-

Reger’s Music under Straube ’s Editorship, 1903-1938 155

schin held that an intelligent eclecticism, of which he considered the Con­ servatory instrument a model, could redeem the organ music of Reger’s period: If one thinks of the new organ at the Leipzig Conservatory, Günther Ramin’s dedication of which constituted the upbeat to the convention, it would appear that such a characterization of the new movement is possible, and that this does not mean an absolute break with the immediate past.70 As for Straube himself, whatever his positive assessment of the 1927 instru­ ment—which must have led him to use the organ as the basis for his 1938 Reger edition—that assessment seems to have assumed a degree of ambiva­ lence by 1944. Concerning Reger’s Variations and Fugue on an Original Theme in F-sharp minor op. 73, Straube wrote to Hans Klotz: A number of years ago I studied the piece with one of my pupils, Goering from Eisleben, when the auditorium instrument of the Conservatory was a compromise organ, which certainly would have been detested and damned by you. The tonal effects afforded by the instrument were convincing, and they did justice to the variety of dynamics demanded by the composer. For a number of years, since about 1938, we have had in the auditorium a Baroque organ built according to the strict principles of the Orgelbewegung. I have not yet tried the piece out on this instrument.71 Straube appears to have implied a negative evaluation of the KompromißOrgel, and the fact that the instrument was altered again around 1938 under his supervision tends to confirm that view.72Nevertheless, he still believed in 1944 that the organ had been capable of producing a satisfying interpretation of Reger according to ‘the variety of dynamics demanded by the composer,’ even though it was precisely this ‘abundance of dynamic possibilities’73 from which he wished to abstain, at least in his 1938 Preface. In any case, he seems to have retained—or at least to have resuscitated—some faith in the aesthetic validity of the ‘Romantic’ organ as late as the 1940s. It is to Straube’s credit, too, that he argued in 1938 merely for the possibility, not the necessity, of performing Reger on classical organs designed (as the Conser­ vatory organ certainly never was) on a terraced Werkprinzip model. O f course, it proves difficult to reconcile the seemingly contradictory atti­ tudes latent in Straube’s 1938 Reger edition, and the source of those con­ tradictions certainly lies in his tendency, consistent throughout his career, to regard popular convictions—in the form of either abstract aesthetic opin­ ions or specific historical assessments—as subjective, transitory phenomena rather than as absolutely objective verities. Whether it is justified or not, this element of Straube’s character has lent his arguments, especially when they

156 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

are taken together over a long period, a certain inchoate quality and an appar­ ent lack of conviction. In other words, Straube’s larger philosophy prevented him from ever acting with the kind of singular direction that characterized the ideas of Jahnn or even Gurlitt on the one hand, or of certain tenacious proponents of the old orchestral organs (like the outspoken Zwickau organ­ ist Paul Gerhardt) on the other. Thus, the same Straube could write to Fritz Stein in 1946 that ‘today, the sound of a Sauer organ means nothing to me anymore’74 and nevertheless lament, in a letter to Walther Kunze in 1948, the destruction of ‘the Willibrordi Church, its beautiful Sauer organ, almost the entire city of Wesel.’75 Straube had expressed this kind of ambiva­ lence already in 1926, when he reacted against the general tone of Gurlitt’s Freiburg conference. His stance—articulated, as became increasingly typi­ cal, with a degree of melancholy to his former pupil Karl Matthaei— might well be kept in mind by anyone who seeks to adapt Reger’s music to organs built according to different standards from those of Reger’s period: In the lectures of the organ conference, what interested me again was... the intel­ lectually substandard level of the presentations, above all of the discussions, ffl] The people do not at all perceive that everything artistic is borne by a mentality in general intellectual. Otherwise they could not issue such feeble-minded judg­ ments about the ‘romantic organ,’ as though it were technical child’s play and absolute nonsense, when it was in fact an expression of the overheated dynamic will inherent in Nietzsche’s ‘superman’just as much as in Wagner’s dynamic or in the attempt of the physicists to exact the ultimate rational knowledge of the world, as well as in the crescendo architecture of Reger’s chamber and orches­ tral works.—We have collapsed in this intellectual respect, too, indeed the entire culture of Europe, and we are returning to very simple, clearly realized, static understandings of life! But in fifty years, all these things will again be obsolete, and a new world will again arise. Thus, all is in the flux of things, and we are in the middle of it.76 For Straube, then, any responsible assessment of the past must of necessity be informed by a subjective sociocultural criticism in which musical style is treated as a manifestation of general intellectual values. And, in his thinking, the fact that a specific phenomenon—say, Reger’s style—may be found to parallel larger cultural trends is ultimately more interesting than any absolute aesthetic or moral judgment about it.77

Karl Matthaei: Vom Orgelspiel In light of Straube’s remarks to Matthaei above, and in view of his approach to Reger’s op. 27 in 1938, it is pertinent here to examine Matthaei’s own

Reger*s Music under Straube *s Editorship , 1903-1938 157

comments about Reger performance in his Vom Orgelspiel: Eine kurzgefaßte Würdigung der künstlerisch orgelgemäßen Interpretationsweise und ihrer klanglichen Ausdrucksmittel.n Matthaei had been Straube’s pupil from 1920 until 1923, and in 1936 (i.e. two years before the appearance of Straube’s ‘classical’ Reger edition) he produced a monograph on historical organ per­ formance and construction, the only extended treatise ever to issue from Straube’s circle.79 Matthaei’s views about Reger’s general position in music history have much in common with Straube’s own sociohistorical mode of thinking, and one may read his remarks as a kind of moderate reaction to the debates about Reger’s aesthetic validity which were very much alive in 1936: This is not the place to debate whether this organ repertory will be granted the gift of immortality. It is enough to know that Reger has something to say to our time ... [10 Given his impressionable nature, Reger may have felt only too well the restless, self-tormented pre-war period with its volatilization and dissolution of innermost spirituality and collected traditions into a devastating materialism. Thus, his call to accomplishment is the essence of his work, and, battling against all pessimism, he searched for a means of expression adequate to polyphonic composition: linear counterpoint, which he, even with his many walks down Bach’s paths (and this is of decisive import) was able to emulate out of his own distinctively disposed nature and environment only seldom, and then always merely by approximation. Nevertheless, his language is honest, and seldom is something composed without direct truthfulness and power of experience ...80 Matthaei goes on to offer valuable performance advice concerning dynamics, Similar to his conflicting spiritual tensions, the dynamics play themselves out in gigantic contrast. With the rich scale from pppp to ffff^ one must carefully con­ sider each of Reger’s markings. If at one time the musicians of the classical era understoodf f to denote the strongest sound, the same marking requires much less exertion in Reger’s organ works. Especially in the context of long crescendi, this second or third precursory stage to the full organ ought to be met with wise mod­ eration if one does not wish to tire the ear of the listener unnecessarily, thereby exhausting his ability to comprehend.81 instrument type, The unnamed organ type which most nearly serves this expansive world stands approximately midway between the Bach organ ideal and the modem tonal character, completely colored with orchestral timbre. One can therefore look

158 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

to instruments of Ladegast, Walker [recte: Walcker], or to the work of Sauer, equipped with modem aids (free combinations, Rollschweller etc.).82 and registration: Completely erroneous, though, is the view that the organ based on terraced dynamics—at present already more or less superseded—with all conceivable sub- and super-octave couplers is best suited for the most plastic performance possible. The doubling of tones in one and the same rank via a manual octave coupler, i.e. namely as a replacement for missing high pitches, can only damage a true interpretation. Note that Reger often strives for an increased thematic empha­ sis, and with it an enhanced fullness of tone, by means of virtually overwhelming written-out octave passages. An artificially added octave doubling on top of this results in a senseless, burdensome overabundance, ffl] Admittedly, if on an organ from the turn of the century there is, for example, on a subsidiary manual heavily outfitted with 8’ stops no overtone-strengthening registers higher than two narrow 4’ stops to clarify the texture, then one must avail oneself of such questionable means. Precisely for the sometimes so overloaded, multi-voiced note accumula­ tions of Reger’s style, the only right combination proves to be the healthy fusion of lower, narrow-scaled stops with higher, wider stops which strengthen the over­ tones. Perhaps this is the reason why especially the Sauer organ type from the first two decades of this century, with its relatively narrow fundamental princi­ pals, could subject itself to this sometimes almost abnormally thick texture with a somewhat transparent effect. Mildly voiced, not too clumsily aggressive, repeat­ ing mixtures become just as much a necessity here as does a rich, intelligently ter­ raced timbrai scale in the 8’ range (Variations and Fugue op. 73!). ffi] This strong consideration for orchestral components of the same octave—here the difference sharpens, analogous to the deterioration of the essence of the French organ, with the former demand of the old linear-polyphonic composition with respect to the use of stops of the same pitch level—also requires that one treat the reeds in a reserved manner, especially with a thickly woven web of numerous voices. So much the more important they become for single voices in manual and pedal (cantus firmus), also for stronger emphasis of a thematic progression in the con­ text of a large crescendo, and finally for the frequent conclusions which accumu­ late notes in powerful, always richly formed masses.83 All of this—moderation of dynamics, attention to clarity of texture, care with reeds—bears extraordinary similarity not only to Straube’s own practice, but also to Walter Fischer’s 1910 essay addressed to the Westphalian Organists’ Guild.84 Indeed, it should not go unnoticed that Matthaei in 1936 addressed the same issues—with the same solutions— as did Fischer in 1910. Whatever the effect of the Gurlitt-Mahrenholz-Jahnn reform movement by the mid1930s, it of course remained the case that many organists were playing Reger

Reger ’s Music under Straube ’s Editorship , 1903-1938 159

on the orchestrally inclined instruments from the composer’s own period. Matthaei maintained that they should continue to do so, and he quite natu­ rally treated the problems arising from performance on those organs. He con­ tinued on the subject of crescendo registration: As a rule, the written out terms crescendo and diminuendo refer to an increase of sound through the addition or through the retiring of stops, i.e. generally with the help of the Rollschweller (or the Walze)... Considering the short span of time over which a large crescendo occurs [in e.g. the Canzone op. 65/9], it should be evident that artistic aids such as a well built crescendo pedal or Walze alone are in a position to produce a smooth swell. In such a case, the crescendo can never occur according to stop groups of similar timbre, to say nothing of the rudimen­ tary employment of the preset combinations. This would contradict the intentions of the composer, and, too, it is hardly possible in a short span of time with large numbers of stops ... ffl] From this argumentation we conclude moreover that the organist must acquire a superior pedal technique, especially with a single foot, namely in order to proceed in moving pedal lines with all disciplines [i.e. of registration etc.] free of disturbance and unnoticed by the listener. In Reger’s organ music, it is impossible to reject the otherwise so frequently questionable Rollschweller, particularly in those passages which require quick, large crescendi with a considerable number of stops. It is possible to achieve longer crescendi, though, with other methods (the help of a registrant, sensible ordering of the com­ binations, and the like).85 Matthaei insisted that some sort of register crescendo device was absolutely necessary to Reger’s organ music, an assertion with which Straube evidently would not have agreed either in 1903 (there was no Walze in Basel) or in 1938. He did reflect Straube’s practice, though (and Reimann’s before him), in admonishing the organist to develop a smooth technique independent of registrants. Matthaei continued on the related subjects of crescendo and agogic accent: Now, what do the frequent symbols —= quasi f and — molto mean? They indicate less crescendo or diminuendo, or none at all, via the register crescendo, rather an enhanced expressive ability by means of the swell box. One might clarify their difference from the simple hairpins — in that not only a movement of the swell shoe must occur, but also a simultane­ ous agogic alteration (espressivo) corresponding to the inner tension. The simul­ taneous interplay of the pairs crescendo-diminuendo = —==H and accelerando-ritardando plays a very important part in Reger’s organ works.86 Matthaei’s treatise also addresses tempo, clearly reflecting Straube’s own rationale and holding up his 1919 edition as exemplary.

160 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

One must approach with caution Reger’s tempo markings in fast passages. They are often so exaggerated that to follow them with mathematical exactitude neces­ sarily leads only to an overheated and indigestible performance for the listener. The reason for this practice, typical for the great master’s organ works, lies par­ tially in his fear of many organists’ dragging tempi. On the other hand, it must be mentioned that Reger usually, and especially during the Weiden period, had no organ on which to try out his works. He had to avail himself of the piano. It is easy to see that, owing to the insufftcient dynamic increase, his own temperament got somewhat out of control. In his powerful accelerando he must have been sub­ ject to the illusion that a quick tempo might serve as a substitute for fullness of tone. It is the great service of Karl Straube to have clarified this matter. A volume of Reger’s organ compositions in his arrangement with clear directions (Peters # 3455) bears witness to the great understanding and lively sympathy which the then-St. Thomas organist brought to Reger’s art.*7 It is possible to offer substantial objections to the particulars of Matthaei’s argument: that Reger did have access to an organ in Weiden, that his ‘over­ heated’ way of writing is not peculiar to his keyboard works and therefore is probably not related to the shortcomings of one instrument over another, and that the player ought to be at least as concerned about playing too slowly as too quickly.88 However, it may be more important to recognize here that Matthaei’s ideas are more or less faithful to Straube’s own, however much Matthaei believed that his teacher ‘gave him the freedom to develop accord­ ing to his own convictions.’89 Furthermore, when those ideas were articu­ lated in the context of the 1930s it is significant that they had not changed in any essential way from two decades earlier, and that they left little room for Orgelbewegung theorizing, at least with respect to Reger.90

‘Lighter paper for lady cigarette smokers’: thoughts on a complete Reger edition In the last decade of his life, Straube again took up the issue of editing Reger’s organ music, this time at the request of the Lutheran pastor and liturgist Oskar Söhngen (1900-1983). In 1941, Söhngen had written a threepart essay for Musik und Kirche in which he argued that the interpretation of Reger according to the objective standards of the Orgelbewegung was the only possible way to get at the essence of the music, which he in turn located in ‘spirituality’ (‘Geistigkeit,’ the objective essence of which was revealed in the new organs) rather than in ‘flowing expressivity’ (‘das fließendAusdruckshafte,’ the superficial subjectivity of which was all the ‘Romantic’ organ could offer).91 Söhngen’s thesis was in fact a good deal more radical than Straube’s own rather ambivalent stance, even though the 1941 essay

Reger ’s Music under Straube ’s Editorship, 1903-1938 161

used Straube’s edition of three years past to lend legitimacy to its arguments and claimed that he had wholly embraced a new way of teaching Reger: Straube’s new edition of the organ Fantasy on the Chorale 'Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27 (Edition Peters) demonstrates that the great chorale fantasies of Reger reveal a surprising spiritual affinity with the chorale partitas of the old masters if their registration and dynamic shaping occur correspondingly. Straube told me that today his students study all the large Reger works according to the principles of terraced dynamics.92 In October 1946, Söhngen wrote Straube with the request that he undertake a practical edition of Reger’s collected organ works. Straube’s thorough reply to that request on 15 November is so revealing about his attitudes toward Reger’s music and the problems of editing that the bulk of it is reproduced below. It constitutes by far Straube’s most extensive treatment of the sub­ ject, and Söhngen’s categorical advocacy for a ‘classical’ Reger is noticeably absent. The commission which you entrust to me is such an honorable one and so deeply moving in remembrance of my great friend, that I hardly venture to undertake its realization. [|] The problems which come up lie in the performance directives with which Reger supplemented the notes in his publications. He attempted to represent clearly his own interpretation via a superabundance of dynamic and agogic markings. It is not only the organ works; the wonderful D-minor String Quartet [op. 74], the Sinfonietta [Amajor, op. 90] and G-major Serenade [op. 95], the Violin Concerto [A major, op. 101] and the Hiller Variations [op. 100] suffer the same encumbrance, which obtained more or less the opposite of that which Reger wished to accomplish. Only after he himself performed the C-major Violin Sonata op. 72 with Henri Marteau at the 1904 composers’ conference in Frank­ furt am Main did the most sensitive musicians among those present recognize with what subtlety of feeling the threateningjfjf and pppp were absolved and ani­ mated under the hands of the composer, so that a perfect unity manifested itself in the architecture of the sonata’s four movements. Above all a fluid dynamic was employed. Moreover, the tempi were, contrary to the exaggerated metronome markings, remarkably moderated and balanced throughout, [^f] This contradiction between printed material and authentic performance by the composer finds its explanation in the religious foundations of the spiritual man Max Reger, who in the public forum could not do enough to compromise his actual essence through questionable jokes and boasting. fl[] He felt himself to be a messenger from God who in this world was to lead German music from the erroneous ways of Wagner’s art back to the works of the great classical era. In serious conversation as well as in letters, he thus interpreted his mission to me more than once. These remarks of childlike belief attest to his firm faith that he had been entrusted with

162 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

a mission in the service of God. A fact of great import for insight into the true Reger, [1j] He felt that he was a conduit of an eternal power, and he regarded with astonishment his own creative achievements, which his human ability could not have brought forth. This experience led him to that humility and modesty with respect to his own work which ought to be regarded as one of the most beautiful and remarkable characteristics in Reger’s pure and honest personality, ffl] But out of this grew a difficulty, which lay in the fact that it was impossible for him, after the ecstasies of creation, to place himself at a distance from the expressions of his spirit, which themselves were of supernatural origin. To determine the right words and signs that gave a third party the possibility of penetrating this mysteri­ ous tonal world, that was for him impossible, ffi] In this thinking and feeling, he was closely related to his brother in Christ: Anton Bruckner ... Questions about the validity of [Bruckner’s] so-called original versions or the printed publica­ tions, edited by Ferdinand Loewe or Franz Schalk, speak of the difficulties that moved Bruckner’s soul, [K] A similar problem exists with Max Reger, only this one is substantially more complicated because in the printed editions the perfor­ mance directives are entered by the composer in nearly disorderly abundance. With this, there exists a musicological edition which is supported by the highest authority, namely the composer himself. But if these instructions are followed, the result is on the whole unpleasant and aurally unsatisfying. The performance of the Sinfonietta in 1907 [1905?] by the Berlin Philharmonic under the direc­ tion of Arthur Nikisch is the frequently cited well-known example. Only after Reger came in close contact with an orchestra as director in Meiningen was there a clearly recognizable transformation in this regard. It may be said of the last orchestral and chamber music works that one can lay the score and parts on the stands and they will sound. [10 I cannot publish a musicological edition of the organ works, since one already exists. It would probably be possible, though, to clarify the artistic intentions of this great master in a practical edition, and through this a stronger effect on the public could be achieved. [10 If you should be receptive to these ideas, honored Herr Dr. Söhngen, many organists would be happy about it, and I will make an effort to take up the plan, even though I at my age will perhaps be unable to carry it through.93 Clearly, the issues surrounding Reger’s music were for Straube much more complex than for either Söhngen in 1941 or Matthaei in 1936. On the one hand, he could not wholly debunk the late Romantic language in which Reger articulated his music; on the other hand, he could not discount the emerging appreciation for old organs, either, even with regard to Reger. Even though Straube had shown willingness toward Söhngen’s project, he turned, exactly two weeks later, to Fritz Stein with doubts as to its efficacy: In remembrance of our great friend, it would be a beautiful, deeply moving proj­ ect for me. Nevertheless I doubt whether such an edition is still necessary in our

Reger’s Music under Straube ’s Editorship, 1903-1938 163

time. Do you know my arrangement of the Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott’ (op. 27)? Should it be the case? What do you say? My ten­ dency is to keep this body of organ music by Max Reger alive, also for the clas­ sical organ type. But is it right to shut out the romantic organ sound of ca. 1900? Doubtless, Reger was influenced by the sound of the old organs in the Three Organ Pieces (op. 7, if I am not mistaken), the Suite op. 16, as well as in op. 27, op. 29 Fantasy and Fugue (C minor) dedicated to Richard Strauß, and op. 30 (Freu dich sehr, o meine Seele). But with the F-sharp-minor Sonata [op. 33], with the organ Fantasies on ‘Wie schön leucht’t uns der Morgenstern’ and ‘Straf mich nicht in deinem Zorn’ [op. 40] the situation changed in favor of the modem organ. Similar sounds will be available on the type of organ bom out of the Orgelbewegung. But the magical timbre of Impressionism and its possibilities have completely disappeared ... [f] Unfortunately, the organ as such cannot be termed an instrument with an organic development, like all string instruments. Each organ builder can construct the pipework according to his own principle, and in this unique combination of the tonal possibilities he can praise the artistic perfection of the achieved regal organ sound. We cannot know whether or not in 1986 the German Orgelbewegung will be rejected as historicization and a return to the values of the Romantic organ will be preached as the ultimate wisdom. What will then become of my practical Reger edition? Lighter paper for lady cigarette smokers.94 Here, Straube articulated clearly his belief that the best argument against ‘practical’ editions is the fact of a short-lived historical relevance.95 Given both his enduring interest in historical theory and the particular asperities of German sociopolitical upheaval from the fall of the Kaiser through the aftermath of World War II, it should be no surprise that Straube embraced cer­ tain aspects of the Orgelbewegung without adopting its positivist standards of objectivity (Sachlichkeit). The rise of positivism in scholarly enterprise was, of course, in the most general sense both a reaction against the worst of Romantic sentimentality and a search for absolute standards in rational inquiry at a time when those standards were no longer offered by religion. That Straube in the final decade of his life did not have the resolve of men like Oskar Söhngen (who found the whole essence of Reger confirmed in Orgelbewegung objectivity), Helmut Walcha (who categorically rejected Reger on the same basis), or Karl Matthaei (who insisted on the necessity of the Romantic aesthetic for Reger), and so could not advocate a straightfor­ ward solution to the problem, confirms, if anything, the extreme significance of that problem in his thinking. Along these lines, it might be expected that the core of Straube’s arguments about interpretation (for Bach, Reger, and others) is to be found not in the particulars of notation or organology, but rather—however abstruse it may appear—in the mystical stance of the com­ poser toward religion and theology.

164 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Finally, whereas it is certainly arguable whether Reger was ‘influenced by the sound of the old organs’ in his works though op. 30, Straube believed that the Sonata op. 33 marked a decisive stylistic turning point in the composer’s development, a belief underscored by the lively interest Straube took in that work’s inception (see Chapter 2). Important in this connection, too, is Stein’s report that Straube had been convinced in the end to cooperate on a Reger collected edition and to produce a practical version of the organ works through op. 30, the dynamic demands of which can be satisfied by the sound resources of the old organs. Unfortunately, sickness and death pre­ vented the execution of this plan.96

Notes 1.

2.

3.

All of these projects were underway during Reger’s period: the Bach-Gesellschaft edi­ tion of J. S. Bach’s Werke, 1851-1926; the Denkmäler Deutscher Tonkunst, 1892-1931; and the Archives des Maîtres de I Orgue des XVIe et XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, 1898-1910. By the last decade of the nineteenth and the first decades of the new century, men who had become colleagues of both Reger and Straube were also involved in precisely this kind of scholarly editorship. It should not go unnoticed, for example, that the Berlin musicologist Max Seiffert, whom Straube cited in the Preface of his 1904 Alte Meister des Orgelspiels for ‘many rich suggestions’ [‘ ... die Fülle reicher Anregungen... ’] and to whom he dedicated his 1907 Choralvorspiele alter Meister, had himself edited the inaugural volume of the Denkmäler in 1892 (Samuel Scheidt, Tabulatura nova). This last category falls under the German term Bearbeitung or Übertragung, whereas the broader designation Ausgabe tends to address the former kinds of publications (scholarly and practical editions). Such nomenclature is by no means mutually exclusive, though, and Reger himself employed the terms more loosely than their English equivalents might be. See for example his letter to Feruccio Busoni of 17 April 1895: ‘In the near future will appear from my publisher (Augener, London) Bach’s D-minor Toccata and Fugue [BWV 565] in my arrangement [Bearbeitung] for pianoforte, two hands ... ; it is prob­ ably a somewhat daring undertaking to edit [herauszugeben] the same work after Tausig ... * [‘In der nächsten Zeit wird bei meinem Verleger (Augener, London) die Bachsche D-moll-Toccata und -Fuge in meiner Bearbeitung für Pianoforte zu zwei Händen er­ scheinen ... ; es ist ja wohl ein etwas kühnes Unternehmen, nach Tausig dasselbe Werk nochmals herauszugeben ... ’] Reger, Briefe eines deutschen Meisters, 43-44. On the other hand, when he voiced his intention to ‘newly edit [herausgeben] Bach’s orchestral works,’ he almost certainly aimed at something different from his Bearbeitung of the Bach Inventionen with Straube. Ibid., 288. Regarding Reger’s connection to Riemann’s editorial activity from 1890 through 1895, see Lindner, Max Reger, 71 ff.; and Reger’s letters to Lindner from the period

Reger ’s Music under Straube ’s Editorship , 1903-1938 165

4.

5.

6.

reproduced in Reger, Briefe eines deutschen Meisters. On Reger as editor-transcriber of Bach’s works, see Klaus Ebbeke, ‘Max Reger als Bearbeiter Bachscher Werke,’ Musik und Kirche 51 (1981): 121-128; and especially Johannes Lorenzen’s central study Max Reger als Bearbeiter Bachs, Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger-Instituts no. 2 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1982). Although Reger’s interest in transcriptions seems to have ebbed after the first years of the new century, it was renewed during his years in Meinin­ gen (1911-1915) with arrangements of, for example, Bach’s harpsichord concerti and Hugo Wolfs Lieder. See in particular Reger’s letter of 28 September 1914 to Adolf Wach, in which he expressed his intention to ‘newly edit Bach’s orchestral works as well as the keyboard concerti (with orchestral accompaniment).’ [‘Ich will nämlich die Bachschen Orchesterwerke neu herausgeben, auch die Klavierkonzerte Bachs (mit Orchester­ begleitung).’] Reger, Briefe eines deutschen Meisters, 288. See especially Wolfgang Stockmeier’s seminal essay ‘Karl Straube als Reger-Interpret* with regard to Straube’s edition of the Toccata op. 59/5. See in addition Hambraeus, ‘Karl Straube, Old Masters and Max Reger’; and Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule. In his 1995 study Max Reger: Zur Rezeption in seiner Zeity Hermann Wilske has col­ lected information pertaining to those Reger works published by C. F. Peters/Leipzig through 1918, including both the number of printings and the number of copies sold during that period. Wilske bases his work upon documents now housed ‘for the most part’ [‘zum größten Teil’] in the Sächsisches Staatsarchiv/Leipzig. Regarding the present inquiry it is interesting to note that Straube’s 1912 edition of Reger’s organ pieces op. 59/7-9 (Kyrie eleison, Gloria in excelsis, Benedictus, Edition Peters No. 3286) yielded 600 copies in three printings, of which 587 were sold by 1918. By contrast, Reger’s original Twelve Pieces op. 59, published in 1901 in two volumes as Edition Peters No. 3008a and b, yielded 2,800 copies in seven printings each, of which 2,584 (Volume 1) and 2,688 (Volume 2, including the pieces Straube excerpted in 1912) were sold by 1918. Peters reissued Reger’s extremely marketable Benedictus two times after its appearance in 1901 and before Straube edited it in 1912: Edition Peters No. 3114 (1910; 700 copies in three printings, of which were purchased 683) and Edition Peters No. 3215 (1908, for harmonium; 1,050 copies in three printings, of which were purchased 1,039). Wilske supplies similar statistics for the original publications of Reger’s collections opp. 65, 80, and 85, but not for Straube’s 1919 edition of those pieces, since his study extends only through 1918. See further Wilske, Max Reger: Zur Rezeption, 372-376. Obviously, the kind of research undertaken by Wilske would be highly desirable if extended to include Straube’s Reger editions of 1919 and 1938, both issued by C. F. Peters. Concerning his editions from 1904 (Alte Meister des Orgelspiels) and 1907 (Choralvor­ spiele alter Meister) Straube commented in 1950, ‘I did not intend that my suggestions be followed by the organist slavishly to the letter. They were always supposed to leave him the freedom of expressing his own musical feeling.’ [‘Ich wollte diese Andeutun­ gen von dem Orgelspieler auch nicht mit sklavischer Buchstabentreue befolgt sehen. Sie sollten ihm immer noch die Freiheit lassen, sein eigenes musikalisches Empfinden zu äußern.’] Straube, ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,’ 10. To Straube’s credit, this sentiment is

166 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

clear from the Preface to the 1904 collection, which addresses the necessity o f ‘a rather strong element of subjective feeling’ [‘ ... ein[] stärkerer] Einschlag subjektiven Em­ pfindens ... ’]. However, the kind of freedom of which he speaks in 1950 is not evident in the Reger editions from 1912 and 1919, neither of which Straube supplies with prose explanations, or from the Preface to his 1938 edition of op. 27. Of course, any of the above questions may and should be applied to the other reper­ tories Straube edited. How many organists, for example, were in 1913 playing Bach’s Praeludium BWV 545 with ‘the brilliance and splendor of the Meistersinger orchestra’ [‘ ... [derJGlanz und die Pracht des Meistersinger-Orchesters ... ’] as suggested by Straube in his edition from that year, and how many were still doing so in 1934, when he was editing Bach according to Orgelbewegung norms (Acht kleine Präludien und Fugen, Edition Peters No. 4442)? See Bach, Orgelwerke Band II, ed. Karl Straube, 4, note A; and Idem., Acht kleine Präludien und Fugen, ed. Karl Straube (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1934). • ... je ein Heftchen 2 stimige u. ein Heftchen dreistimmige Kanons u. zwar als direkte Vorschule zu J. S. Bachs Inventionen ... ’; the entire letter of 26 November 1894 is reproduced in Susanne Popp, ed., Der junge Reger (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf, 2000), 218-219. Reger remarked that he had occupied himself with the possibility of pedal etudes ‘already for some time’ [‘schon längere Zeit’] but would not be able to realize it for another quarter year. Both Reger and Straube undoubtedly felt that contemporary German organ music and the technical demands placed on German organists were too conservative. Straube probably inherited this view from his Berlin mentor Heinrich Reimann, who by 1896 was praising Charles-Marie Widor’s compositional ability and technical execution as a model for his German colleagues. See Reimann, ‘Französische Orgelkomponisten,’ 361. For Reger’s part, it is probably worth noting that Hugo Riemann had himself published a collection of pedagogical studies for the organ in 1890, precisely the year Reger took up study with him in Sondershausen. See Hugo Riemann and Carl Armbrust, Technische Studien: ein Supplement zu jeder Orgelschule (Leipzig: J. Rieter-Biedermann, 1890). ‘Verein evangelischer Kirchenmusiker für Rheinland und Westfalen.’ Beckmann advo­ cated Reger’s music in print during the period, and Reger dedicated the Symphonic Fantasy and Fugue op. 57 to him in 1901. ‘Wissen Sie, was fehlt? Es fehlt eine Schule des Pedalspiels! Wenn Sie mir die verschieden­ sten technischen Formen etc. etc. da mitteilen wollten, so würde ich Pedaletüden schrei­ ben; Verleger hätten wir schon. Ueberlegen Sie sich mal die Idee! Alle ordentlichen Figuren, Passagen usw. (mit Beispielen aus den verschiedensten Werken): das könnte ein famoses Werk geben. Mit Bezeichnung der Appiikatur. Dann die Etüden alle in Trio­ form; das würde ungemein nützlich sein. Wollen wir zwei so ein Ding machen? Ich bin dabei!’ Letter from Weiden of 15 January 1900, reproduced in Gustav Beckmann, ‘Max Reger über Orgel, Orgelkomposition und -spiel,* Neue Musik-Zeitung 14 (1925): 329. ‘Aus irgend einem Grunde zerschlug sich dann der Plan wieder.’ Ibid. ‘Gebrüder Hug haben angefragt, wann sie das Manuskript der Pedalschule für Orgel haben könnten! Ich habe Ihnen geantwortet, so anfangs 1903. [%\ Ich erbitte mir Deine

Reger's Music under Straube 's Editorship, 1903-1938 167 methodisch wohl gesichteten Materialien zur Pedalschule bis spätestens Ende Oktober! Ich komponiere dann die Etüden und sende sie Dir!* Letter of 12 September 1902. Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 24. 14. Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 157-159. Hartmann sees a disparity between the project’s final product (i.e. the arrangement of Bach’s Inventions) and the expressed original concept of a Pedalschule. It is difficult to find convincing support for this posi­ tion, though, since Reger seems to have viewed the notion of ‘pedal studies’ in a some­ what more general way than one might today (i.e. pieces for pedal alone). Already in 1900, he had spoken to Beckmann about pedal etudes ‘in trio form,’ and in the prefa­ tory remarks to the 1903 School o f Trio Playing, he (or Straube?) referred to the contents as ‘pedal studies in the form of trio playing’ [‘Pedalstudien in der Art des Triospiels’]. Hartmann himself points out this latter fact, and it is certainly not unreasonable that any piece which includes as its pedal part the original left hand of Bach’s Inventions might claim the nomenclature o f ‘pedal etude.’ The pedal studies of Julius Schneider, eventu­ ally edited by Straube, likewise contain pedal exercises only in conjunction with manual playing. 15. Cf. Straube’s negative remarks about Reger’s understanding of Bach cited in Chapter 1, note 12; and Chapter 4, note 20 (12 March 1906, to former pupil Karl Hasse), in which Straube made clear his fear of being associated with Reger’s performance practice in that regard. 16. ‘Die ‘Schule des Triospiels*— 15 zweistimmige Inventionen von Johann Sebastian Bach, zu denen eine dritte Stimme, meist frei imitatorisch gehalten, geschrieben ist—bezweckt vor allem , den angehenden Organisten nachdrücklich auf das oft arg vernachlässigte Triospiel für die Orgel hinzuweisen. Pedalstudien in der Art des Triospiels dürften sich auch als das rechte Mittel zur Erweckung und Stärkung des Sinnes für Polyphonie, den innersten Lebensnerv eines wahren Orgelstils, erweisen. Die 15 Inventionen sind für diese Schule gewählt worden, weil sie jedem, der das Orgelspiel erlernen will, genau bekannt sein müssen. Musikalisch werden also keine neuen Anforderungen gestellt, so daß der Studierende seine ganze Aufmerksamkeit einer möglichst exakten Ausführung der Studien zuwenden kann. [f| Das technische Ziel eines jeden von künstlerischen Gesichtspunkten aus geleiteten Orgelunterrichts, die absolute Unabhängigkeit der beiden Hände, voneinander wie von der Führung des Pedales, zu erreichen, ist für die genaue Bezeichnung der Manual- und Pedalapplikatur maßgebend gewesen. Die rechte Hand hat auf dem I. Manual stets die Original-Oberstimme, das Pedal stets die Original-Unter­ stimme Bachs zu spielen. Die linke Hand führt dazu die neu geschriebene dritte Stimme auf dem II. Manual aus. [f] Die oberhalb des Pedalsystems angegebenen Applikaturen deuten die Benutzung des rechten, die unter den Linien die des linken Fußes an. Der stumme Fußwechsel auf einer Taste ist mit den Abkürzungen lr (links-rechts) beziehungs­ weise rl (rechts-links) bezeichnet.’ Johann Sebastian Bach, Zweistimmige Inventionen als Schule des Triospiels ' bearbeitet von Max Reger und Karl Straube (Leipzig: Lauter­ bach und Kuhn, 1903), Preface. Authorship of these remarks is not ascertainable, but it seems likely that Reger could have written the first paragraph, Straube following with the remaining two. The comment concerning polyphony as the mark of ‘a true organ style’

168 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

17.

18.

19.

20.

bears remarkable affinity both to the theories of Albert Schweitzer and Emil Rupp from the same period and to the rhetoric of the Orgelbewegung theorists of the 1920s. See e.g. Albert Schweitzer, Deutsche und französische Orgelbaukunst und Orgelkunst (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1906). ‘Die neue 3. Stimme (im II. Man.) ist stets von mir. Überhaupt alles! Herr Straube hat nur die Fingersätze und die Pedalapplikatur gemacht. Selbstredend dürfen Sie das in Ihrer Besprechung sagen, wie auch das, daß die ganze Idee zu der Schule des Triospiels von mir ist.’ Max Reger, Briefe zwischen der Arbeit, ed. Ottmar Schreiber, Veröffentli­ chungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa-Reger-Stiftung no. 3 (Bonn: Dümmler, 1956), 136. See further Walter Fischer, review of Schule des Triospiels, by Max Reger and Karl Straube, Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 26 February 1904, 165-166; and Idem, review of Schule des Triospiels, by Max Reger and Karl Straube, in Die Musik 3 (1904): 372. In his reviews, Fischer clarified that Straube had given the work the ‘instructive guise’ [‘instruktive Gewand’] of fingering and pedaling indications, but he did not go as far as to say that the idea for the project was Reger’s. Hartmann has called attention to the fact that Fritz Stein, in his essay ‘Max Reger und Karl Straube’ for Straube’s 1943 Fest­ schrift, erroneously attributed the conception to Straube. Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 159; but cf. Stein, ‘Max Reger und Karl Straube,’ 55. ‘Alle Mordente stets mit kleiner, chromatischer Untersecunde, dagegen alle Pralltriller stets mit diatonischer Obersecunde!’ Bach, Schule des Triospiels, 1. Reger almost cer­ tainly borrowed this rule from Hugo Riemann, whose position Straube, too, sanctioned in his 1913 Bach edition, though without the stringency Reger sought here. Cf. Straube’s remarks concerning the Praeludium BWV 545: ‘The editor follows in general the instruction of Hugo Riemann and in the performance of the mordent chooses the small [i.e. chromatic] second beneath. Herewith he does not wish to lay down a binding system, rather he entrusts to the liking of the individual whether to interpret the orna­ ment [bar 20, beat 1, soprano a2] chromatically or diatonically. In this respect, too, the ancient era will have allowed much greater freedom than the more prescriptive artistry of the present wishes to concede.’ [‘Der Herausgeber folgt im allgemeinen der Anweisung Hugo Riemanns und nimmt bei der Ausführung des Mordentes die kleine Untersekunde. Er will damit keine bindende Ordnung aufstellen, sondern überläßt es dem Belieben des Einzelnen diese Verzierung chromatisch oder diatonisch zu deuten. Die alte Zeit wird auch in dieser Beziehung viel größere Freiheiten gestattet haben, als die gebundenere Kunstpflege der Gegenwart dem Spieler zugestehen will.’] Bach, Orgelwerke Band //, ed Karl Straube, 5, note J. ‘Es giebt in dem ganzen Werke auch nicht eine einzige Pedalnote, die nicht ihre Fußbezeichnung hätte.’ Fisher, review of Schule des Triospiels, Allgemeine Musik-Zei­ tung, 166. Of course, the most cogent criticism of the work does not consist in the addi­ tion of the new left-hand counterpoint, which Reger in fact constructed quite cleverly, but rather in the unjustified notion that students might substantially gain by learning to play trios with unidiomatic pedal parts. The authors claim that their ‘signs for pedaling ... may be regarded as a further devel­ opment of [Carl August] Haupt’s method, but are so far completed that all varieties of

Reger's Music under Straube's Editorship, 1903-1938 169

21.

22. 23. 24.

25.

26.

27.

touch, such as passing in iront and behind, changing feet on a key, etc., are indicated with simple directness.’ Riemann and Armbrust, Technische Studien, iii. It is not clear that Straube would have known the work. Presumably due to its demonstrated marketability, Peters had already reissued Reger’s Benedictus op. 59/9 under separate cover in 1908 (for harmonium) and 1910. See note 5 above. Concerning the 1912 edition, see especially Hambraeus, ‘Karl Straube, Old Masters, and Max Reger,’ 59-61. Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 165-167. By 1913, Straube had established the composers who would serve his editorial purposes through 1950: alte Meister (1904 ff.); Bach (1913 ff., but earlier if one takes into account his 1910 edition of the Magnificat BWV 243 [Edition Peters No. 29a] or his 1903 col­ laboration with Reger); Liszt (1904 ff); Reger (1912 ff). These were for him the indis­ putable high-water marks within an historical paradigm governed by the same kind of logico-linear development found in the symphonies of Brahms or Bruckner. The same philosophy is operative in his playing through ca. 1918 and in his teaching (extended in time to include certain contemporary figures like David) through 1948. See further especially Chapter 4. Letter of 25 February 1944, in Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 172-175. See the citation of the text in Chapter 2, note 44. Straube articulated his conviction about Reger’s tendency to excess in other private correspondence, usually in a more oblique fashion and couched in abstract language targeting larger psychological issues in Reger’s per­ sonality. His statement to Erwin Zillinger of 5 January 1917 is typical: ‘Max Reger ... suffered under the influences of an enviroment that was foreign to him. Therefore he wrestles with problems but comes to no conclusions; hence the problematic element in an artistic nature that was nevertheless so fertile.’ [‘Max Reger ... hat doch unter den Einflüssen einer ihm fremden Umwelt gelitten. Daher ringt er mit den Problemen, kommt zu keinen Abschlüssen; daher das Problematische in seiner dennoch so reichen Künstlernatur.’] Ibid., 31. Such formulations prove consistent over Straube’s career, and they are not essentially different from the tone of his public statements, for example his 1941 description of Reger as ‘an introspective nature [with] an imagination which tended to lose itself in the limitless.’ [‘Eine in Innerlichkeit versenkte Natur und eine Phantasie, die dazu neigte, ins Grenzenlose sich zu verlieren ... ’] Straube, Max Reger: Werden und Vollendung. Zum 25. Todestag des Meisters (Leipzig: Poeschel & Trepte im Aufträge des Insel-Verlags, 1941), 12. See also in this regard Straube’s correspondence with Oskar Söhngen cited below and related discussion in Chapter 4. This notion—that Straube’s version ‘with the approval of the composer’ might amount to a conscious reaction against the kind of sharp criticism to which Reger’s music had been unremittingly exposed since the 1890s—is supported by the fact that Reger himself was palpably aware of such criticism and tended to react inappropriately to it. On this topic see the discussion in Cadenbach, Max Reger und seine Zeit, 111-112 passim. ‘Das Maßlose, Überwuchernde einer allzu eindruckbereiten Gefiihlsart erkannte er als

170 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

eine Gefahr.’ Straube, Max Reger: Werden und Vollendungt 12. Straube’s remark refers precisely to the period in which Reger composed the Twelve Pieces op. 59. Straube calls for pedal stops Gedackt 8’ (Kyrie eleison, op. 59/7) and Gemshom 8’ {Gloria in excelsis, op. 59/8), neither of which was present on the St. Thomas organ in or before 1912. Otherwise, the registrations are perfectly realizable on the instrument, and Straube undoubtedly regarded its disposition—designed by him in 1907-1908 as an expansion of Sauer’s Opus 501—as exemplary during the period. Heinz Wunderlich has pointed out that Straube’s Reger editions bear ‘registration indications for the Leipzig St. Thomas Church organ’ [‘ ... Registrieranweisungen fur die Leipziger Thomaskirchen­ orgel ... ’], but he does not note the admittedly minor discrepancies in the 1912 publi­ cation. Wunderlich, ‘Zur Bedeutung und Interpretation von Regers Orgelwerken,’ 10. More interesting than Straube’s departures from the St. Thomas organ in matters of registration is his inclusion, in the Benedictus beginning at bar 11, of two sets of hair­ pins (manual and pedal, or manual and manual) which occasionally oppose each other. Assuming that these refer to manipulation of a swell box, such instructions are only real­ izable on the very largest instruments of the period with multiple swells, a distinction which excludes all the Leipzig organs with which Straube was associated. Adaptation to smaller organs, even to other instruments of Sauer, was complicated not only by the number and kinds of stops Straube suggested, but also by the mechanical devices he presupposed. For example, Straube required three free combinations in op. 59/8, whereas smaller Sauer instruments (like that, for instance, in the Stadtkirche of Bad Salzungen) might have only two. By comparison, it might be well to remember that Straube’s Wesel organ (Sauer Opus 650, 1895) had none at all despite its remarkably lai^e disposition. Of course, one instrument to which Straube’s published suggestions were almost certainly adapted was Sauer’s Leipzig Conservatory organ (1909, III/53; see Appendix 6, and the documented performances of op. 59/7-9 at the Conservatory in Appendices 1 and 2) which, despite its significantly smaller stoplist, offered six free combinations. The accompanying of a melody at 8’ on a stronger manual with counterpoint at 8’ and 4* on a subsidiary one is characteristic of Reger’s cantus firmus treatment. Walter Fischer recognized this publicly as early as 1910 and recommended it ‘for the performance of similar organ pieces by Bach’ [‘ ... fiir die Ausführung gleichartiger Orgelwerke von Bach.’]. Fischer, Über die Wiedergabe, 11; and Chapter 1, note 12. Cf. other so-called ‘gapped* registrations in both the editions of 1912 {Gloria in excelsis; fugai texture on Manual III at m. 49 ff.: Aeoline 8’, Gedackt 8’, Quintatön 8’, Quinte 2 2/3*) and 1919 {Prelude op. 80/1; Manual III at mm. 11 ff., 44 ff., and 52 ff.: Aeoline 8’, Voix céleste 8’, Flautino 2’). Apparently, Straube found such combinations suitable for more than one particular kind of texture. He employed it in strict counterpoint in op. 59/8, and in thick, chordal passages in opp. 59/7 and 80/1. In 1910 Walter Fischer, too, underscored his belief that simplicity was the key to register­ ing Reger’s organ works. He cited Straube’s practices as exemplary, even though it is difficult to imagine how he might have reconciled Straube’s 1912 edition with the notion

Reger's Music under Straube 's Editorship, 1903-1938 171

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

of Einfachheit in registration. Fischer, Über die Wiedergabe, 10-11; see also Chapter 2, note 41. Straube’s ‘instrumentation* for the opening arpeggios of BWV 536 (on Manual III, Andante grazioso [sempre teneramente e dolce]): Voix céleste 8’, Fugara 4’, Flautino 2’, Quinte 2 2/3’, whereby ‘the stops should trace the lines of the tonal picture only in the delicate manner of a silverpoint ... Fugara 4’, Flautino 2’, and Quinte 2 2/3’ would have to be gently and softly voiced, accordingly.* [‘ ... die Register (sollen) nur in der zarten Art des Silberstiftes die Linien des Tonbildes nachzeichnen ... Demnach müßten Fugara 4’, Flautino 2*, Quinte 2 2/3’ in der Intonation zart und weich getönt sein.’] Bach, Orgelwerke Band//, ed. Karl Straube, 23, note B. His ‘Violino Solo’ in Reger’s Benedic­ tus op. 59/9 consists of (Manual III) Gedackt 8*, Äoline 8’, Voix céleste 8’, and Viola 8’, i.e. largely but not exclusively string stops. An important corollary in Reger’s thinking was his chauvinistic conviction that sub­ stance (Ernst) defined Germanic composition, whereas superficial concerns (including an unhealthy attention to coloristic effects) dominated the approach of other nations, especially France and England. Reger was, of course, not alone in this kind of thinking: certain members of Straube’s close circle expounded it well before the turn of the cen­ tury (e.g. Heinrich Reimann) and well after the composer’s death (e.g. any number of nationally-minded Orgelbewegung theorists). ‘Jede Komposition ist gut, die vollkommen farblos gespielt werden kann. Man muß zuerst zeichnen können, um zu malen.* Reported by the Reger and Straube pupil Hermann Grabner in Hans Kühner, ed., Neues Max Reger-Brevier (Basel: Amerbach, 1948), 79. The calculation of public reception unquestionably informed the character of Straube’s performances and editions at least through 1920. In the prefaces of his early music editions from 1904 and 1907, Straube made clear that his purpose lay not in ‘serving history* (1904: ‘Diese Ausgabe ‘alter Meister’ will nicht der Historie dienen.’), rather in reintroducing a neglected repertory into the common practice. Straube, ed., Alte Meister des Orgelspiels, 2. A similar sentiment is present in his 1950 essay ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,’ where he justified his early Bach interpretations by means of the favor­ able change in Bach’s public image brought about by those interpretations. Straube, ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,’ 86. In 1912, Straube’s rationale for his Reger playing would not have been very different. However, one cannot argue that, because Straube was con­ cerned more than Reger with color, he was therefore unconcerned with the kind of purely technical questions which occupied the composer. As is addressed in some detail in Chapter 4, Straube advocated a more or less rigid musical canon of Germanic compos­ ers chosen precisely for their mastery of Form und Inhalt. By the same token, Reger did not refrain from arranging Bach’s works (orchestral and otherwise) for the resources of modem orchestras. The overheated, unbridled quality so characteristic of Reger’s style, of course, does not derive wholly or even largely from his performance directives, but from the disturbing effects of an extremely free, seemingly unstable chromatic harmony. It seems that the most valid contention against Straube’s approach proceeds not from the ethical issues

172 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

38. 39.

40.

41.

42.

raised in recent years by Hartmann, whose arguments frequently seek to exaggerate Straube’s behavior to the level of apostasy. Rather, it seems more pertinent to observe that Straube’s considered manner simply has little to do with the impulsive character of Reger’s music. ‘ ... immer reich, unmittelbar, aber ungezähmt.’ Letter of 19 July 1916. Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 27. A particularly well-constructed summary of these issues is that of Heinz Lohmann, ‘Bemerkungen zur Interpretation der Orgelwerke von Max Reger,’ Musik und Kirche 43 (1973): 230-231. Bengt Hambraeus, too, has systematically compared Reger’s original tempi in op. 59/7-9 with Straube’s suggestions in the 1912 edition. Hambraeus, ‘Karl Straube, Old Masters and Max Reger,’ 59-61. Again, for a detailed comparison, see Ibid. Among numerous examples in Gloria in excelsis op. 59/8: beginning (Reger, Con moto festoso J = 72; Straube, Maestoso J = 80); bar 49 (Reger, Un poco meno mosso J. = 76; Straube, Andante tranquillo J = 60); and in Benedictus op. 59/9: bar 18 (Reger, molto stringendo; Straube, un poco stringendo), bar 24 (Reger, Vivace assai J = 96; Straube, Un poco mosso J = 72-92). Of course, a comparative critical edition would be desirable. Cf. Gustav Robert-Tomow’s 1907 discussion of Reger and Straube cited in Chapter 1, note 1. The contrast there, as in most all subsequent writings, is between Reger as ‘Kraftgenie’ and Straube as ‘wissenschaftliche Intelligenz.’ Robert-Tomow, Max Reger und Karl Straube, 24-25. ‘ ... als die überhaupt höchst zulässigen Tempi in Bezug auf “Schnelligkeit” ... wenn nicht der Vortrag auf Kosten der Deutlichkeit leiden soll.’ Footnote to the fugue in the piano Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Johann Sebastian Bach op. 81 (1904). Cf. Reger’s note to the Fugue on BACH op. 46/2, where the metronome indications are to be considered ‘only an approximate indication of the gradual acceleration of tempo’ [‘ ... nur eine ungefähre Andeutung der allmählichen Beschleunigung des Tempos’]. Among his private statements on the matter is his oft-cited admonition to Gerard Bunk in 1910: ‘Young man, do not play my things too quickly; ... play eveiything quite calmly, even when it indicates faster performance.’ [‘Junger Mann, spielens meine Sachen halt net zu schnell;... spielns alles recht ruhig, auch warms schneller dasteht.’] Gerard Bunk, Liebe zur Orgel: Erinnerungen aus einem Musikerleben, 2d ed. (Dortmund: Ardey, 1958), 74. Also of interest are Reger’s 1912 performances of Brahms’ Symphony No. 4 in E minor op. 98, for which he employed slower tempi than those indicated by the composer. Reger justified this to the Duke of Meiningen on grounds of harmonic and polyphonic clarity. See the pertinent correspondence in Reger, Briefwechsel mit Herzog Georg II. von Sachsen-Meiningen, ed. Hedwig and Erich H. Müller von Asow (Weimar: 1949). Other orchestral and chamber scores, both of his own music and that of other compos­ ers, which Reger used during his tenure at Meiningen bear original markings that may shed light on his attitude to tempo modification, at least during the latter part of his life and at least in ensemble contexts. These documents are housed at the Max-Reger-Archiv, Staatliche Museen Meiningen/Schloss Elisabethenburg, and I thank Frau Herta Müller for her kind assistance in my study of a portion of them.

Reger*s Music under Straube ’s Editorship , 1903-1938 173 43. Wilske, Max Reger: Zur Rezeption, 56-58 passim. 44. ‘Straubes Verdikt, es sei Reger verwehrt gewesen, seine Vorstellungen mittels des Notentextes zu übermitteln, hat so in der Ausführung der Orgelmusik zu einem Verzicht auf Interpretationsvaleurs geführt, die an flexible Tempi gekoppelt sind. Eine derartige Nivellierung, die vor allem Konsequenzen für die atmosphärische Wirkung der Regerschen Orgelmusik nach sich zieht, hat sich über die Straube-Schule mit erstaunli­ cher Resistenz bis heute erhalten. Diese Nivellierung trifft im Fall der Tempovorschriften auf einen Bereich, der sich einer Fixierung durch absolute Zahlenwerke [sic] letzlich [sic] selbst dann noch entzieht, wenn Metronomisierungen als Eckwerte vorgezeichnet werden, wie Reger es bisweilen auch praktiziert hat. [|] In ihrer Gesamtheit sind Regers Vorzeich­ nungen nichts weniger als der Versuch, jene auf das äußerste differenzierten klanglichen und energetischen Prozesse, die seinem eigenen Spiel innewohnten, mit zwangsläufig unzulänglichen graphischen Mitteln weiterzugeben. Vereinfacht ausgedrückt, beruhen viele Rezeptionsschwierigkeiten von Regers Musik in ihrer Zeit auf dem Mißverständnis der Interpreten, seine Anweisungen eher als starre Größen aufzufassen und nicht als Aus­ löser imaginativer Prozesse.’ Ibid., 58. 45. This kind of treatment typifies Reger’s tendency to introduce a structurally important motive with benign phrasing (in this case

also shown at Figs. 3.1 and 3.2) and then to develop it by allowing the phrasing to alter the motive’s structure (as above in Fig. 3.5, which essentially destroys one of the most prominent features of the original theme, namely the sequential fall of perfect fifths). For further examples in the organ music, see especially Reger’s treatment of the BACH motive in the Fantasy op. 46. Cf., too, Straube’s upbeat phrasing of motivic units in his performance copy of the Sonata op. 33 (movement 1, mm. 37-42), shown at Fig. 2.10, and the subsequent discussion in Chapter 2. 46. In Riemann’s phrasing theory, two slurs which meet above a single note indicate the allegiance of that note to both phrases. A further example in the same piece occurs at the downbeat of bar 9. Compare these instances to Straube’s use of the same notation in his performance materials (Chapter 2, especially note 74). In the present example, it is interesting that Straube did not opt to continue the pedal slur begun in bar 20 through at least the f natural in bar 21. 47. In bar 25 of the present example, the slurred soprano d-sharp2 and g2 would, by virtue of the staccato/marcato, be separated by some sort of detachment from each other as well as from the surrounding line. Compare, too, Straube’s pedal articulations earlier in the piece (bar 4 ff., ’ J* J ’ J* J ). Sometimes, though, the issue is less straightforward. For example, in the three opening bars of the Gloria in excelsis, which constitute a homophonic, quasi-hymnic exposition of a chant incipit, Reger provided no slurs, instead marking the notes of the soprano melody with marcato signs ( f f f f etc.) and indicating sempre ben legato. Straube retained the marcato but dispensed with Reger’s legato instruction. He also drew one large slur over the entire passage and then divided the whole by means of two internal slurs. Whereas Reger’s meaning is unequivocal—a

174 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

broad legato covering what amounts to a single phrase of a hymn—Straube’s version is more difficult to parse and provokes any number of questions. How did he interpret the marcato indications over the melody? Because he omitted Reger’s sempre ben legato, does that mean he intended something other than an uninterrupted legato, or did he pro­ vide the slurs to communicate the same message as the composer? Straube’s registration for the passage: Manual III (Aeoline 8’, Gedackt 8’, Gemshom 8’, Flûte d’amour 8*, Quintatön 8*, Spitzflöte 8’, Viola 8*, Traversflöte 4*, Fugara 4’) coupled to similar stops on Manual II (Dolce 8’, Gedackt 8’, Salicional 8*, Rohrflöte 8’, Harmonika 8*, Konzertflöte 8’, Flauto dolce 4’). Sauer’s voicing, particularly of the softer flute and string stops Straube employed here, does not aim at the kind of precise attack characteristic of many modem instruments, particularly those built on the prin­ ciples of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century organs. In other words, even a small phras­ ing lift will not produce the same aural effect on Sauer’s instruments from the period (particularly in a Gothic hall church like St. Thomas/Leipzig) as it will on, say, most modem American organs (particularly in the dry acoustics of American churches). Cf. for instance the second exposition in the double fugue of Reger’s op. 46, m. 72 ff. Reger supplied slurs which might imply articulations, nevertheless with the admonition sempre ben legato. As with the 1912 edition, the nomenclature does not match exactly the disposition of the Leipzig organ. Straube consistently called for Traversflöte 4’ in Man. II, Flauto dolce 4’ in Man. Ill (in fact they are reversed at St. Thomas), and (as in 1912) Gemshom 8’ in the pedal. Also anomalous are Straube’s requests for Cor anglais 8* and Flageolet 2’ in Man. II (e.g. in op. 59/5), and Flûte harmonique 8* in Man. I (op. 80/11, which stop had been present before the 1908 renovations). Straube’s next edition of organ music would appear ten years later in 1929 (Alte Meister des Orgelspiels, Neue Folge), based on the disposition of the Schnitger instrument in St. Jakobi/Hamburg ‘discovered’ by Hans Henny Jahnn and Günther Ramin. In contrast to his purposes in the 1919 Reger edition and everything before it, Straube aimed here ‘to vivify the factual source materials, as they present themselves in the musical architecture, via an objectively clear version with the least possible expenditure of Affekt—since such an approach informed by Affekt belongs to the period after 1750 ... ’ [‘ ... die sachlichen Gegebenheiten, wie sie im Grundriß und Aufbau des Tonstückes sich darbieten, mit dem geringsten Aufwand an affektgemäßer Wiedergabe—denn solche affektgemäße Art gehört der Zeit nach 1750 an—in objektiv klarer Darstellung lebendig werden zu lassen ... ’] Karl Straube, ed., Alte Meister des Orgelspiels: Neue Folge, 2 vols. (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1929), 4. Cf. also the English ‘Forward’ for which no translator is credited and which offers a variant of the text. For the specifications of the organs in Wesel and Basel and their relevance to Straube’s Reger performance, see Chapters 1 and 2, respectively. Appendix 5 includes, so far as possible, a list of the instruments on which Straube performed during his career as an organist. It is commonly assumed that Straube’s Reger style, which in a practical sense was non­ existent after 1918, when he in effect gave up organ performance, changed dramatically

Reger's Music under Straube 's Editorship, 1903-1938 175

54. 55.

56. 57.

58.

59.

in accordance with Orgelbewegung theory; the change is evident (also assumed) from his 1938 edition of Reger’s op. 27 (see below). In Chapter 4, it will be seen that Straube already around the turn of the century wished to demonstrate (and hence to underscore) Reger’s stylistic link with certain German repertories from the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries, and that he later used the same thinking to affirm Reger’s relevance in the era of Gurlitt, Mahrenholz, and Jahnn. But for Straube, what had rescued Reger from mere epigonism was his ultimate grounding in the general musical language of his own time, a language dominated not by Böhm and Buxtehude, but by Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner. Whatever his involvement in or sympathy toward Orgelbewegung theory, Straube never categorically rejected the validity of the aesthetic from which Reger himself had issued. Consequently it should surprise neither that his 1938 Reger edition bears certain similarities to his earlier ones, nor that he continued to recommend as ‘very usable’ [‘ganz brauchbar’] his 1912 edition as late as 1943. See Straube’s letter of 7 May 1943 to Heinz Wunderlich, cited in Wunderlich, ‘Zur Bedeutung,’ 10. See, too, the discussion of Karl Matthaei’s treatise Vom Orgelspiel below. See above, note 5. Such a fact would suggest—and this stands apart from any particular implementation of performance directives—the degree of authority Straube’s name undoubtedly com­ manded by 1919. It is undeniably consequential for the singular success of Reger’s organ music that its earliest proponent was from 1903 to 1918 organist of the Bach church and, by the time the 1919 edition appeared, successor to Bach in the cantorate. Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule; Stockmeier, ‘Karl Straube als Reger­ interpret’; Hambraeus, ‘Karl Straube, Old Masters and Max Reger.’ It is at least useless and at most unwarranted to suppose, as Hartmann does, that Straube’s actions were driven by a combination of musical ineptitude and moral degeneracy. If Straube’s editorial license is to be criticized (as it certainly can be), such criticism ought not proceed on grounds of either ignorance or ethics. Straube was vastly experienced with the kind of instrument he presupposed in his editions through 1919. (It cannot be emphasized enough that this fact does not carry over to the Schnitger, Silbermann, and Hildebrandt organs he used as a starting point in later years.) This experience was under­ scored by a remarkable degree of practical success during his performing years. Further­ more, no evidence would even begin to suggest that Straube harbored malicious intent. The subjective premise expressed in the preface to his alte Meister edition of 1904 must be identical to that behind his Reger editions of 1912 and 1919— ‘As I see it’ [‘Wie ich es sehe’]—and it is really very difficult to proceed beyond this, especially considering that Straube’s attitude was the rule, not the exception, of the period. Again, see especially Wilske, Max Reger: Zur Interpretation, and the fascinating account of Reger’s unpredictable piano performances (also cited by Wilske) in Willi Jinkertz, Mit Reger an zwei Flügeln (Düsseldorf: Die Faehre, 1951), 13-15 passim. Objections to each of these generalizations are perfectly possible; namely, that Reger regarded color as independent from and secondary to content, that the nature of his counterpoint does not admit a consistent linear phrasing, and that Reger’s own tempi at the keyboard tended to overshoot rather than undershoot his prescribed markings.

176 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

60.

61.

62.

63. 64. 65. 66.

Nevertheless, if one can see the essence of Straube’s editions in their basic principles rather than in their particulars, it is possible to reconcile his editorial policy with his attitude about individual interpretive freedom. Cf. note 6. For the specification, see Appendix 6. Straube did not cite the organ expressly. Unlike his earlier editions, the registrations for which contained certain discrepancies with the St. Thomas organ, the nomenclature here agrees exactly with the Conservatory’s 1927 stoplist, and Straube reckoned with four free combinations instead of the earlier three (remarkably, the Conservatory organ had had six free combinations since 1909). This answers Hartmann’s question as to the organ type assumed by Straube in 1938. See Hart­ mann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 157. ‘ ... einen Nachweis dafür... ,wie Regers Schaffen für die Orgel darstellbar sein kann auf einem Instrument, das der Überlieferung aus der klassischen Zeit des Orgelbaues ange­ hört, das aber keinerlei Eignung besitzt für ein Nachbilden von Klängen, entnommen dem Orchester der musikalischen Romantik und beeinflußt durch die Fülle der dyna­ mischen Möglichkeiten, die diesem Klangkörper innewohnen. Um das gesetzte Ziel zu erreichen, mußten die von dem Komponisten eingezeichneten ineinander übergehenden Veränderungen in der Tonstärke durch eine in Gegensätzen sich auswirkende Terrassen­ dynamik umgedeutet werden. Solche Vereinfachung gibt dem Formenbau der Phantasie stärkere Fügung und der erzielte Gesamteindruck—schlicht und in sich geschlossen— läßt die inneren Beziehungen der Regerschen Kunst zu dem Schaffen der Meister aus den vergangenen großen Zeiten der deutschen Orgelkunst offenbar werden.* Reger, Phantasie über den Choral 4Ein Feste Burg ist unser Gott*op. 27, ed. Straube, preface. Aside from the always exceptional Hans Henny Jahnn, the bulk of that discussion cen­ tered on organ sound (and by extension, registration) rather than other issues like key­ board action, chest design etc. See further Chapter 4. Of course, by 1938 the issue of Reger’s legitimacy came to bear not only upon proponents of the Gurlitt-MahrenholzJahnn Orgelbewegung, but also upon a significant number of opponents to that reform movement, some members of which represented (if in a highly unsystematic way) the propagandizing interests of Hitler’s regime. On the political ideologies with which the organ reform allied itself, see Kaufmann, Orgel und Nationalsozialismus. ‘ ... ihre von der Originalfassung abweichenden Vortragsbezeichnungen... ’ Reger, Phan­ tasie über den Choral Fin feste Burg ist unser Gott* op. 27, ed. Straube, preface. ‘ ... in einer nach gleichen Grundsätzen gestalteten Wiedergabe ... ’ Ibid. ‘ ... ein[] Instrument, das der Überlieferung aus der klassischen Zeit des Orgelbaues angehört... ’ Ibid. ‘Die von der Firma Sauer, Frankfurt a. d. O. (Inh. Dr. h. c. Oskar Walker) völlig umge­ baute und erweiterte Konzertorgel des Landeskonservatoriums soll in der Art ihrer jetzi­ gen Registeranordnung einen Orgeltypus darstellen, der den Anregungen der bisherigen Kongresse für deutsche Orgelkunst folgend die klanglichen Voraussetzungen erfüllt für die Wiedergabe der großen Orgelmusik des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts und J. S. Bachs wie auch für die Darstellung der späteren Konzertmusik für Orgel, insbesondere der Schöpfungen Regers und Zeitgenossen. In bezug auf die Orgel der Barockzeit wurden die einzelnen Klaviere in der Art des alten Hauptwerkes (I. Manual), Rückpositiv (II.

Reger’s Music under Straube ’s Editorship , 1903-1938 i l l

67.

68.

69. 70.

71.

Manual), Oberwerk (III. Manual) disponiert. Andererseits sind die modernen Hilfsmittel (Crescendowalze, Jalousie-Tritt, freie Komb., Koppeln usw.) weitgehend berücksichtigt worden.’ Program sheet preserved in the Archive of the Hochschule für Musik und The­ ater Telix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy’ (Leipzig). Authorship of the remarks is not cited, but the content is nearly identical to that in Günther Ramin, ‘Die neue Orgel des Landes­ konservatoriums zu Leipzig,* in Emst Flade, ed., Dritte Tagungför deutsche Orgelkunst in Freiberg in Sachsen vom 2.-7. Oktober 1927: Einföhrungsheft (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1927), 53-55. There, Ramin attributed the new specification to Straube. It is worth noting, too, that the repertories for which the new instrument was designed largely circumvented the period from Bach to Reger, at least in the mind of the author. This observation is borne out, too, by Ramin’s repertory on 2 October (Lübeck, Sweelinck, Buxtehude, Bach, Franck, Reger, Hermann Grabner; see further Appendix 2), which bridges the period between Bach and Reger only with Franck (the single supposedly nonGermanic composer represented on the program). ‘ ... keinerlei Eignung besitzt für ein Nachbilden von Klängen, entnommen dem Orches­ ter der musikalischen Romantik ... ’ Reger, Phantasie über den Choral Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott1op. 27, ed. Straube, preface. ‘Nun zu der Freiberger Tagung. Vielleicht haben Sie meinen Aufsatz im Einführungsheft schon gelesen und können daraus andeutungsweise ersehen, daß ich die Zukunft der Orgel in der Bevorzugung synthetischer Klangmöglichkeiten vermute ... Ja, ich möchte behaupten, je weniger die Orgeljünger von Mathematik und Klangfunktionen verstehen, um so geräumiger ist ihr Herz für jede Vermischung. Mit einigem Entsetzen habe ich die Dispositionen der neuen Orgel des Landeskonservatoriums zu Leipzig gelesen. Das übersetzt in die Mensurpraxis Sauers, ergibt gerade das, was ich auf den Tod hasse.’ Hans Henny Jahnn, Briefe Erster Teil 1913-1940, ed. Ulrich Bitz et al. (Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, 1994), 305. Jahnn refers to his essay ‘Das moderne Instrument,’ in Flade, Dritte Tagung: Einführungsheft, 69-79. The Germans preferred to speak of ‘compromise’ and a Kompromiß-Orgel rather than eclecticism. ‘Denkt man an die neue Orgel des Leipziger Konservatoriums, deren Einweihung durch Günther Ramin den Auftakt der Tagung bildete, so schiene es, daß auch eine solche Ausprägung der neuen Bewegung möglich ist, welche keinen absoluten Bruch mit der jüngsten Vergangenheit bedeutet.’ Jacques Handschin, ‘Die Tagung für deutsche Orgelkunst in Freiberg (Sachsen),’ Zeitschrift för Musikwissenschaft 10 (1927): 115. ‘Ich habe das Stück mit einem meiner Schüler, Goering aus Eisleben, vor mehreren Jahren studiert, als die Saalorgel des Konservatoriums eine von Ihnen sicherlich verab­ scheute und verdammte Kompromiß-Orgel war. Die aus den Mitteln des Instrumentes sich ergebenden Klangwirkungen waren überzeugend und ließen der Vielfalt der vom Komponisten geforderten Dynamik Gerechtigkeit widerfahren. Seit einer Reihe von Jahren, etwa 1938, haben wir im Saal eine Barockorgel gemäß den strengen Gesetzesord­ nungen der “Orgelbewegung.” Auf diesem Instrument habe ich das Stück noch nicht aus­ probiert.* Letter of 25 February 1944, in Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 173-174.

178 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

72.

73. 74. 75. 76.

77.

78.

79.

Straube’s student Goering does not appear on the lists in Wolgast, Karl Straube: Eine Würdigung, 37-54; or Rüger, ‘Prof. Dr. Karl Straube: Schülerliste, 1995.* For the altered specification as documented in 1940, see Appendix 6. The proximity of the instrument’s final renovation to the publication of Straube’s op. 27 edition seems to be purely coincidental, since the stop nomenclature in that edition does not match the disposition of the newly renovated organ, which in any case was most certainly not ‘Baroque.’ ‘ ... die Fülle der dynamischen Möglichkeiten... ’ Reger, Phantasie über den Choral ‘Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27, ed. Straube, preface. ‘Wie ich offen gestehen muß, bedeutet mir der Klang einer Sauerorgel heute nichts m ehr... ’ Letter of 29 November 1946, in Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 215. ‘ ... die Willibrordi-Kirche, die schöne Sauer-Orgel dieses Gotteshauses, ja fast die ganze Stadt Wesel... *Letter of 22 September 1948, in Ibid., 238. Tn den Vorträgen der Organistentagung interessiert mich doch wieder das... doch geistig mindere Niveau der Vorträge, vor allem der Diskussionen, ffl] Daß alles Künstlerische getragen wird von einer allgemeinen geistigen Mentalität, das fühlen die Leute gar nicht, denn sonst könnten sie über die “romantische Orgel” nicht solche blöden Urteile spre­ chen, als sei sie eine technische Spielerei und absoluter Unsinn, während sie doch Aus­ druck des überhitzten dynamischen Wollens war, das in Nietzsches “Übermenschen” ebensogut liegt wie in Wagners Dynamik oder in dem Versuch der Physiker, die letzte rationale Welterkenntnis zu erzwingen, ebensogut wie in Regers Crescendo-Bauten seiner Kammermusik- und Orchesterwerke.—Wir sind zusammengebrochen auch in dieser geistigen Beziehung, und zwar die gesamte europäische Kultur, und gehen zurück zu ganz einfachen, klar übersehbaren statischen Lebensauffassungen! Aber in fünfzig Jahren sind diese Dinge wiederum überholt, und eine neue Welt wird sich dann wieder auftun. So ist alles im Fluß der Dinge und wir mitten drin.’ Letter of 30 December 1926, in Ibid., 69. This is not to say that Straube abstained from aesthetic judgment. On the contrary, his judgments of composers—and hence the particular character of the canon of repertory he propounded—are often heavily informed by what he felt was the validity of the cultural ideals out of which their music arose. This is certainly the case with respect to his lessthan-positive view of nineteenth-century organ music in general and of Mendelssohn’s music in particular. See further Chapter 4. Karl Matthaei, Vom Orgelspiel: Eine kurzgefaßte Würdigung der künstlerisch orgelgemäßen Interpretationsweise und ihrer klanglichen Ausdrucksmittel, 2d ed. (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1949). A possible exception is Michael Schneider’s Die Orgelspieltechnik des frühen 19. Jahr­ hunderts in Deutschland (Regensburg: Bosse, 1941). At the time of his own publica­ tion, Matthaei was director of the Musikschule in Winterthur. Straube is the only person recognized in the preface: ‘In veneration I mention Prof. D. Dr. h. c. Karl Straube. I am indebted to him for a decisive turn in my intellectual life. His essence, which always remains open to development, was an example and stimulation to the pupil, and, out of great goodness and humane nature, it gave him in addition the freedom to develop

Reger's Music under Straube 's Editorship, 1903-1938 179

80.

81.

82.

83.

according to his own convictions. Karl Straube’s severity with respect to artistic mat­ ters and the inexorability of his pedagogical demands created the foundation upon which not least this book, too, was constructed.’ [‘In Verehrung gedenke ich Prof. D. Dr. h. c. Karl Straubes. Ihm verdanke ich eine entscheidende Wendung meines geistigen Lebens. Sein Wesen, welches sich der Entwicklung stets offen hält, war dem Schüler Vorbild und Anregung, und gab ihm aus großer Güte und humaner Art zudem die Freiheit, sich nach eigenen Gesetzen entfalten zu können. Karl Straubes Strenge künstlerischen Dingen gegenüber und die Unerbittlichkeit seiner pädagogischen Forderungen schufen das Fun­ dament, auf welchem nicht zuletzt auch dieses Buch aufgebaut wurde.’] Ibid., v. ‘Hier ist nicht der Ort zu debattieren, ob diesem Orgelschaffen die Dauer der Ewigkeit geschenkt sein wird, es genügt zu wissen, daß Reger unserer Zeit etwas zu sagen h a t... [f] Reger mag in seiner Beeindruckbarkeit die unruhvoll selbstquälerische Vorkriegszeit mit ihrer Verflüchtigung und Auflösung alles Innersten, Gesammelten in verödenden Materialismus zur Genüge empfunden haben. So ist sein Ruf nach Erfüllung das Wesen­ hafte in seinen Werken und im Streit gegen allen Pessimismus sucht er ein der poly­ phonen Schreibweise adäquates Ausdrucksmittel, den linearen Kontrapunkt, welchen er denn bei allem Begehen Bachscher Bahnen, und dies bleibt von entscheidender Bedeu­ tung, aus seiner so anders gearteten Natur und Umwelt nur selten und dann auch immer nur annäherungsweise zu prägen vermochte. Doch ist seine Sprache echt und kaum etwas nicht mit unverbrüchlicher Wahrhaftigkeit und Erlebniskraft geschrieben... ’ Ibid., 252. ‘Gleich seinen seelisch auseinanderstrebenden Spannungen ergeht sich die Dynamik in riesigen Kontrasten, bei der reichen Skala von pppp bis ffff muß man der einzelnen Bezeichnung immer eine sorgfältige Abwägung angedeihen lassen. Hatten einstmals die Praktiker des klassischen Zeitalters unter f f schon das äußerste an Tonstärke verstan­ den, so ist derselben Angabe in Regers Orgelwerken weit weniger Kraftverschwendung zuzumessen. Besonders bei langwährenden Steigerungen soll dieser zweiten oder dritten Vorstufe zur vollen Orgel mit weisem Maßhalten begegnet werden, will man das Ohr des Hörers nicht unnötig ermüden und damit die Aufnahmefähigkeit erlahmen lassen.’ Ibid., 253. ‘Der namenlose Orgeltypus, welcher sich am ehesten dieser expansiven Welt beugt, steht ungefähr in der Mitte zwischen der Bachschen Idealorgel und dem modernen, ganz orchestral gefärbten Klangcharakter. Man kann dabei an Instrumente von Ladegast, Walker oder an die mit modernen Beihilfen (freien Kombinationen, Rollschweller usw.) ausgestatteten Werke Sauers denken.’ Ibid. ‘Vollkommen verkehrt ist aber die Ansicht, daß sich die jetzt schon mehr oder weniger überwundene Terrassenorgel mit allen erdenklichen Unter- und Oberoktavkoppelungen am besten eigne für eine möglichst plastische Wiedergabe. Das Verdoppeln der Töne in ein und demselben Register mit Hilfe der Oktavkoppel im Manual, und zwar namentlich als Ersatz fehlender Obertonfunktionen kann der wahren Werkausdeutung nur schaden. Man überlege, daß Reger vielfach und mancherorts durch förmlich überhäufte, ausge­ schriebene Oktavgänge eine vermehrte thematische Durchzeichnung und damit gestei­ gerte klanglich Ausgiebigkeit an sich schon anstrebt. Da benimmt sich eine obendrein

180 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition künstlich herbeigeführte Oktavverdoppelung als sinnlos beschwerende Überfülle, [f] Allerdings, wenn bei einer, der Jahrhundertwende entstammenden Orgel im ansehnlich mit 8*-Basisregistem besetzten Nebenmanual beispielsweise außer zwei engen 4’-Stim­ men weiter keine höheren natürlichen ObertonVerstärker als klärende Funktionen anzutreffen sind, muß man zu solch zweifelhaften Kunstmitteln greifen. Gerade für die manchmal so überlastet vielstimmige Notenhäufung der Regerschen Schreibart erweist sich die gesunde Verschmelzung von engeren Funktionen tiefer Lage und weiteren Obertonverstärkem höherer Fußzahl als die allein richtige. Das ist vielleicht der Grund, weshalb insbesondere der Sauersche Orgeltypus aus den ersten beiden Dezennien dieses Jahrhunderts mit seinen verhältnismäßig engen Stammprincipalen sich dieser bisweilen fast abnormen Stimmendichte mit einigermaßen klar wahrnehmbarer Klang­ wirkung unterwirft. Gut abgetönte, nicht zu klotzig draufgängerische repetierende Mix­ turen werden hier ebenso zur Notwendigkeit, wie eine reichhaltige, klug abgestufte Klangfarbenskala in der 8’-Tonlage (Variationen und Fuge op. 73!). [f] Diese starke Berücksichtigung orchestraler Komponenten im Äqualklang—hier verschärft sich analog der Verfallserscheinung im französischen Orgelwesen der Gegensatz zur einstigen Forde­ rung der alten linear-polyphonen Satzkunst in bezug auf den Gebrauch von Registem glei­ cher Höhenlage—bedingt auch wieder, daß man im Umgang mit den Rohrwerken gerade beim zahlenmäßig dicht geflochtenen Stimmengewebe in zurückhaltender Weise walte. Zur Einzelstimmführung im Manual und Pedal (Cantus firmus), ferner beim stärkeren Unterstreichen des thematischen Ablaufes in großen Steigerungen und schließlich bei den oft auftretenden, in gewaltigen, immer vielgestaltigen Ausmaßen sich auftürmenden Abschlüssen kommt ihnen eine um so gewichtigere Bedeutung zu.’ Ibid., 253-254. Matthaei goes on to give specific examples of registrations in piano and mezzoforte dynamic according to the mies set forth above in three principal categories: ‘natural synthesis (suitable fusion for single-voice melodies or when necessary for two-voice accompaniment)’ [‘natürliche Synthese (zur Einzelstimmführung oder gegebenenfalls zur zweistimmigen Begleitung taugliche Verschmelzung)’]; ‘heterogeneous combination (glassy sound)’ [‘heterogene Mischung (gläserner Klang)’]; and ‘combination of similar functions’ [‘Mischung gleichartiger Funktionen’]. See further Matthaei’s very exhaus­ tive discussion in Ibid., 254 ff. 84. For citations from Fischer’s article and discussion of its significance, see Chapters 1 and 2; and my ‘Walter Fischer’s Comments on the Playing of Reger’s Organ Music.’ 85. In der Regel nehmen die ausgeschriebenen Begriffe crescendo und diminuendo Bezug auf ein Anwachsen der Tonstärke durch Hinzufügen, oder durch Abstoßen von Registem, und zwar in der Hauptsache unter Zuhilfenahme des Rollschwellers (oder der Walze)... [Es] mag bei Betrachtung der auf kurzer zeitlicher Distanz erfolgenden großen Steiger­ ung ... einleuchten, daß künstliche Hilfsmittel wie ein gut eingerichteter crescendo-Tritt oder die Walze allein nur eine lückenlose und stoßfreie Schwellung hervorzubringen imstande sind. Das Anwachsen der Tonstärke kann in einem solchen Falle niemals nach Klangfarbengruppen, geschweige denn durch rudimentäres Inkraftsetzen der festen Kollektivzüge geschehen, dies würde den Absichten des Komponisten zuwider­ laufen und ist im übrigen auch in der kurzen Spanne Zeit bei großer Registerzahl kaum

Reger*s Music under Straube fs Editorship, 1903-1938 181 durchführbar ... [t] Aus dieser Beweisführung folgern wir zudem, daß der Organist eine souveräne Pedaltechnik, speziell beim einzelnen Fuße sich angeeignet haben muß, um namentlich bei bewegter Linienführung im Pedal mit allen Disziplinen störungsfrei und für den Hörer unbemerkt umgehen zu können. Der sonst so vielfach in Frage gestellte Rollschweller läßt sich bei der Regerschen Orgelmusik unmöglich ausmerzen, besonders dann nicht, wenn es sich um kurze und ausgiebige Ballungen mit ansehn­ lichem Registeraufwand handelt. Bei langwährenden Steigerungen ist es aber möglich, mit anderen Methoden (Zuhilfenahme eines Registranten, sinngemäßes Einordnen der Kombinationszüge und dergleichen) ans Ziel zu gelangen.’ Matthaei, Vom Orgelspiel, 256-257. 86. ‘Was besagen nunmehr die oftmals eingezeichneten Symbole H quasi f — — oder — molto ? Sie beabsichtigen weniger oder gar nicht ein Anwachsen und Abflauen [sic] mit Hilfe des Generalcrescendos, als vielmehr eine im Verein mit dem Jalousieschweller zu erreichende erhöhte Ausdrucksfähigkeit. Ihr Unterschied zu den einfachen Storchschnäbeln ist etwa dahin zu präzisieren, daß nicht nur die Bewegung des Schwelltrittes allein, sondern eine gleichzeitige, der inneren Span­ nung entsprechende agogische Veränderung (espressivo) zu erfolgen hat. Das gleichzei­ tige Ineinandergreifen der Kräftepaare crescendo-diminuendo = — und accelerando-ritardando spielt in Regers Orgelwerken eine ganz gewichtige Rolle.* Ibid., 257. 87. ‘Mit Vorsicht trete man den Regerschen Tempobezeichnungen für rasches Zeitmaß gegenüber. Sie sind vielfach derartig übertrieben angegeben, daß ihre mathematisch genaue Befolgung nur zu einer überhetzten und für den Hörer unverdaulichen Darstel­ lung führen muß. Der Grund zu diesem für das Orgelschaffen des großen Meisters typischen Vorgehen ist einesteils aus seiner Angst vor dem Schlepptempo vieler Orga­ nisten zu erklären. Auf der anderen Seite muß erwähnt werden, daß Reger zumeist und namentlich während der Weidener Zeit keine Orgel zum unmittelbaren Ausprobieren seiner Werke zur Verfügung hatte. Er mußte sich mit dem Klavier behelfen. Daß ihm dabei infolge der nicht ausreichenden dynamischen Steigerung sein eigenes Tempera­ ment etwas durchbrannte, ist leicht einzusehen. In seinem gewaltsamen accelerando unterlag er wohl der Täuschung, welche ihm ein rasches Tempo als Ersatz für die Tonfülle vorspiegelte. In dieser Hinsicht klärend eingegriffen zu haben, ist das große Verdienst Karl Straubes. Ein Band Regerscher Orgelkompositionen in dessen Bearbei­ tung mit klaren Angaben (Peters Nr. 3455) legt Zeugnis ab von dem großen Verständnis und lebendigen Anteil, welche der damalige Thomasorganist der Kunst Regers entgegen­ brachte.’ Ibid., 44. Of course, when Straube’s edition was published in 1919, he was no longer organist of St. Thomas Church. 88. Walter Fischer, too, had argued for generally slower tempi in 1910, but he did not offer the same kind of detailed psychological explanation for Reger’s practice as Matthaei did in 1936. This may be attributed in part to the fact that Fischer’s essay took the form of a lecture for the Dortmund Reger Festival at which Reger himself was present. In his letter to Klotz of 25 February 1944, Straube pointed out the need to guard against both immoderately fast [‘FD-Zug-Geschwindigkeiten’] and immoderately slow

182 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

89. 90.

91.

92.

93.

[‘Schneckenlangsamkeit*] tempi. See Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 174; and the discussion of tempo in Chapter 2. ‘ ... gab ihm ... die Freiheit, sich nach eigenen Gesetzen entfalten zu können.* Matthaei, Vom Orgelspiel, v. Matthaei’s remarks about Reger performance, particularly his advocacy of Wilhelm Sauer’s organs and the use of the Rollschweller, are in fact a good deal more conservative than Straube*s 1938 edition. His treatment of other composers, including contemporary figures like Heinrich Kaminski, does lean on the thinking of the reformers. Moreover, his discussions of certain aspects of performance (especially agogic accent and phrasing) are heavily indebted to the theories of Hugo Riemann. This, together with Straube’s own Riemannesque phrasing in his 1938 edition, speaks for Riemann’s undiminished influ­ ence in Straube’s circles as the century progressed. Oskar Söhngen, ‘Max Regers Stellung in der Kirchenmusikalischen Entwicklung,’ Musik und Kirche 13 (1941): 85 ff. ‘Such a transference of the basic principles of modem interpretation to most of Reger’s really important organ works is not only “possible.” It means not merely a more or less successful adaptation to contemporary style (say, in order to save the rewarding Reger works for the repertory of the virtuoso organist!). Rather, these works seem first to assume their true organic shape in such an interpreta­ tion.* [‘[E]ine solche Übertragung der Grundsätze der heutigen Interpretation auf die meisten und wirklich entscheidenden Orgelwerke Regers ist nicht nur “möglich,” bedeu­ tet nicht etwa nur eine mehr oder minder geglückte Anpassung an den heutigen Zeitstil (etwa um die dankbaren Regerwerke für das Repertoire des Orgelvirtuosen zu retten!), sondem diese Werke scheinen in einer solchen Wiedergabe erst ihre echte, organische Gestalt zu bekommen.’] Ibid., 86. ‘Straubes Neuausgabe der Orgelphantasie über den Choral “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott” op. 27 (Verlag Peters) beweist, daß die großen Choralphantasien Regers eine überraschende geistige Verwandtschaft mit den Choralpartiten der alten Orgelmeister offenbaren, wenn auch ihre Registrierung und dynamische Gestaltung entsprechend erfolgt. Straube erklärte mir, daß er heute sämtliche großen Regerwerke nach den Grund­ sätzen der Terrassendynamik von seinen Schülern studieren lasse.’ Ibid. ‘Der Auftrag, den Sie mir anvertrauen, ist ein so ehrenvoller und für mich in Erinne­ rung an meinen großen Freund innerlich tief bewegender, daß ich kaum wage, seine Verwirklichung zu übernehmen. [|] Die Schwierigkeiten, die sich eröffnen, beruhen in den Vortragszeichen, die Reger dem Notenbilde seiner Werke mit auf dem Weg in die Öffentlichkeit aufpackte. Durch eine Überfülle von dynamischen und agogischen Bezeichnungen versuchte er seine eigene Auffassung klar darzulegen. Es sind nicht nur die Orgelwerke, auch das wunderbare d-moll-Streichquartett, die Sinfonietta und G-durSerenade, das Violinkonzert und die Hillervariationen leiden unter der gleichen Belas­ tung, die mehr oder minder das Gegenteil von dem erwirkte, was Reger zu erreichen wünschte. Erst als er selber auf der Tonkünstlerversammlung 1904 in Frankfurt am Main die C-dur-Violin-Klaviersonate op. 72 mit Henri Marteau zur Aufführung brachte, erkannten die einfühlungsfähigsten der anwesenden Musiker, mit welcher Feinheit des Empfindens die drohenden f f f f und pppp unter den Händen des Komponisten gelöst und

Reger 's Music under Straube 's Editorship, 1903-1938 183 durchgeistigt wurden, so daß eine vollkommene Einheit im Aufbau der vier Sätze dieser Sonate sich offenbarte. Vor allem war es eine Übergangsdynamik, die zur Anwendung kam, ferner wurden die Zeitmaße im Gegensatz zu den übertriebenen MetronomAngaben überraschend gemäßigt und ausgeglichen durchgehalten, ffl] Dieser Widerspruch zwischen gedruckter Vorlage und authentischer Wiedergabe durch den Komponisten findet seine Erklärung in religiösen Grundlegungen des geistigen Men­ schen Max Reger, der in der weiten Öffentlichkeit sich nicht genug darin tun konnte, seine eigentliche Wesensart durch zweifelhafte Witze und Renommistereien zu verge­ ben. [f| Er fühlte sich als ein von Gott gesandter Bote, der in dieser Welt die deutsche Musik von den Irrwegen der Wagnerischen Kunst zurückfuhren sollte zu den Werken der großen Klassik. So hat er mir in ernsten Gesprächen oder auch brieflich seinen Auftrag sehr viel mehr als nur einmal gedeutet. Diese kindlich-gläubigen Äußerungen zeugen von seinem festen Glauben an eine ihm anvertraute Sendung im göttlichen Dienst. Eine Tatsache von wichtiger Bedeutung für die Erkenntnis des wahren Reger. [f| Er fühlte sich als Durchgang einer ewigen Macht und sah staunend die eigenen schöpferischen Leistungen an, die sein menschliches Vermögen nicht hervorgebracht haben könne. Dieses Erleben führte ihn zu jener Demut und Bescheidenheit gegenüber dem eigenen Wirken, die als einer der schönsten und bemerkenswertesten Züge in Regers reiner und echter Persönlichkeit anzusehen sind. [f| Aber daraus erwuchs eine Schwierigkeit, die darin bestand, daß es ihm unmöglich war, nach den Ekstasen des Schaffens Distanz zu den Äußerungen seines Geistes zu finden, die überirdischen Ursprunges seien. Die rech­ ten Worte und Zeichen festzulegen, die einem Dritten die Möglichkeit gaben, einzudrin­ gen in diese geheimnisvolle Tonwelt, das war ihm unmöglich. [f| In diesem Denken und Fühlen war er nächstverwandt seinem Bruder in Christo: Anton Bruckner... Die Fragen um die Gültigkeit der sogenannten Urfassungen oder der gedruckten Ausgaben, redigiert von Ferdinand Loewe oder Franz Schalk, sprechen von den die Seele Bruckners bewegen­ den Schwierigkeiten. [f| Ein ähnliches Problem liegt auch bei Max Reger vor, nur ist dieses wesentlich komplizierter, weil in den vorliegenden gedruckten Ausgaben die Vortrags­ zeichen vom Komponisten in fast verwirrender Fülle eingetragen sind und somit eine musikwissenschaftliche Ausgabe vorliegt, die von der höchsten Autorität, nämlich dem Autor selber, gestützt wird. Werden aber diese Hinweise befolgt, so ist das Ergebnis im ganzen unerfreulich und klanglich wenig befriedigend. Die Aufführung der Sinfonietta im Jahre 1907 durch die Berliner Philharmoniker unter Leitung von Arthur Nikisch ist das oftgenannte berühmte Beispiel. Erst seitdem Reger in Meiningen als Dirigent in nächste Beziehung zu einem Orchester kam, ist in dieser Frage bei ihm eine Wandlung klar zu erkennen. Von den letzten Orchester- und Kammermusikwerken kann gesagt werden, man lege Partitur und Stimmen auf die Pulte und sie werden klingen, [f] Von den Orgelwerken kann ich eine musikwissenschaftliche Ausgabe nicht veröffentlichen, da eine solche schon vorliegt. Wohl wäre es möglich, in einer praktischen Ausgabe den künstlerischen Willen dieses großen Meisters klar darzulegen, und es könnte dadurch eine stärkere Auswirkung dieser Werke auf die musikalische Öffentlichkeit erreicht werden. [f| Wenn Sie diesen Gedanken, hochverehrter Herr Dr. Söhngen, aufnehmen wollen, so werden sich viele Organisten darüber freuen, und ich werde mich bemühen,

184 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition den Plan in Angriff zu nehmen, auch wenn ich ihn bei meinem Alter vielleicht nicht werde durchfuhren können.’ Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 211-213. 94. ‘In Erinnerung an unseren großen Freund wäre es eine schöne, mich tief bewegende Aufgabe. Doch bin ich in Zweifel, ob eine solche Ausgabe heutzutage noch notwendig sei. Kennen Sie meine Einrichtung der Fantasie über: “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott” (op. 27)? Sollte es der Fall sein, was sagen Sie dazu? Die Tendenz meines Wollens geht dahin, dieses Orgelwerk von Max Reger lebendig zu erhalten, auch für den Orgeltypus der klassischen Zeit. Aber ist es richtig, den romantischen Klang der Orgeln um 1900 auszuschalten? Zweifellos ist Reger in den “Drei Orgelstücken” (op. 7, wenn ich nicht irre) und in der Suite op. 16 beeinflußt durch den Klang der alten Orgeln, ebenso auch in op. 27, op. 29 Fantasie und Fuge (c-moll), Richard Strauß gewidmet, op. 30 (Freu dich sehr, o meine Seele). Aber mit der fis-moll-Sonate, mit den Orgelfantasien über “Wie schön leucht’t uns der Morgenstern” und “Straf mich nicht in deinem Zorn” verändert sich das Bild zugunsten der modernen Orgel. Ähnliche Klänge werden auf dem Typus der aus der Orgelbewegung geborenen Instrumente vorhanden sein. Jedoch der Far­ benzauber des Impressionismus in seinen Möglichkeiten ist völlig verschwunden. [f| Leider kann die Orgel als solche nicht ein organisch gewachsenes Instrument genannt werden wie alle Streichinstrumente. Jeder Orgelbauer kann sie nach einem eigenen Prinzip ganz neu im Pfeifenwerk zusammenstellen und in dieser eigenen Kombination der Klangmöglichkeiten die künstlerische Vollendung des endlich erreichten königlichen Orgelklanges preisea Wir können nicht wissen, ob nicht im Jahre 1986 die deutsche Orgelbewegung als Historismus abgelehnt wird und eine Rückkehr zu den Werten der romantischen Oigel als der Weisheit letzter Schluß gepredigt wird. Was wird dann aus meiner praktischen Regerausgabe? Fidibusse für die Zigarettenraucherinnen.’—Letter of 29 November 1946, in Ibid., 214-215. 95. Note that this is not synonymous with the present-day rationale, which is, for all its emphasis on so-called historical ‘authenticity,’ in essence an argument based not in his­ torical but rather in aesthetic theory: namely, that music of a certain period sounds best via the media for which it was intended (not that an original performance practice as a cultural phenomenon is transitory and therefore invalid). 96. ‘ ... an einer Reger-Gesamtausgabe mitzuarbeiten und wenigstens die Orgelwerke bis op. 30, deren Dynamik auch mit den Klangmitteln der alten Orgel darstellbar ist, in einer praktischen Bearbeitung vorzulegen. Leider haben Krankheit und Tod die Ausführung dieses Planes verhindert.’ Stein, ‘Der Freund und Vorkämpfer Max Regers,’ 148.

Chapter 4

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory and Church Music Institute, 1907-1948

The Leipzig Conservatory (then Königlich-Sächsisches Konservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig) employed both Reger and Straube in 1907, and the sub­ sequent teaching contribution of both men constituted the longest single ele­ ment of their careers (for Reger, until his death in 1916; for Straube, until his retirement in 1948). For Reger’s part, the Conservatory was not only one of the major musical institutions in the Bach city; it was also preeminent among German music schools at the turn of the century, and Reger was justly concerned about the reception of his music there during his lifetime, never altogether positive. It seems reasonable, though, that the prestige with which both the city and its Conservatory were associated prompted, at least in part, Reger’s decision to retain certain teaching duties at Leipzig after his move to Meiningen in 1911. In Straube’s case, the Conservatory would provide the framework for a large and influential circle of organ students over a period of some forty years. Over the course of the century’s first decades, Straube’s name became inextricably associated not only with the organ and Cantorate o f St. Thomas Church, but also with his increasingly prominent position at the Leipzig Conservatory from which his idiosyncratic ‘school’ of organ playing emerged.1 O f course, Straube’s long activity at the Conservatory, together with the many German and international students he attracted to Leipzig, must have had enormous consequences for the performance and reception of Reger’s organ music well beyond the boundaries of Saxony.2

Reger and Straube: relations to Leipzig Berlin, St. Thomas Church, and Straube ’s professorship Straube’s initial Leipzig appointment to the prestigious position o f organist at St. Thomas Church is itself remarkable in that he, a young Prussian organ­ ist active in the Rhine city of Wesel, was chosen above nine other applicants 185

186 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

from Saxony and Thuringia without ever having played an audition.3 But apart from whatever negative weight Straube’s non-Saxon roots may have carried, it probably says something about musical taste at the Leipzig Con­ servatory that the organist from Wesel, who came in 1903 to occupy the organ bench left vacant at the death of Carl Piutti (1846-1902), was not hired as Piutti’s replacement at the Conservatory as well. By the time of Straube’s appointment to St. Thomas Church, he had developed a solid reputation as an innovative organist who exploited fully the expressive orchestral possi­ bilities of Sauer’s newest instruments for both old and new music. Likewise by 1903 Straube was—by virtue of his close personal acquaintance with the composer—the leading, authoritative proponent of Reger’s music. None of this would have found friendly reception with ‘“Leipzig taste,” inclining above all to solid craftsmanship, smooth form, and tender sentiment,’4 which had been the legacy of Mendelssohn, Reinecke,5 and their circles at both Gewandhaus and Conservatory. Reger reacted to Straube’s initial Leipzig appointment with a number of characteristically negative comments about what he viewed as an entrenched musical conservatism in the city, coupled with undisguised hopes that his music would make inroads there via Straube’s efforts: T h e situ a tio n is c o m p le te ly d iffe re n t in L e ip z ig [i.e., fro m th a t in M u n ic h ] ! A p a rt fro m th e fact th a t y o u r o rg a n re c ita ls in L e ip z ig w ill c o st y o u v e ry little , sin c e o f c o u rse y o u a re th e o rg a n ist o f th e T h o m a s C h u rc h , a n d th o se c o sts w ill fo r th e m o s t p a rt b e c o v e re d b y c o n c e rt in c o m e — th e re I w o u ld g iv e lo ts o f o rg a n re c ita ls i f I w e re y o u — in o rd e r to sh o w th e p e o p le o f L e ip z ig w h a t o rg a n p la y in g is, a fte r th e g ra n d io se lo a fe r [P au l] H o m e y e r h a s ro c k e d e v e ry th in g to sle e p so sw eetly ! O f co u rse I w o u ld b e e n o rm o u sly th a n k fu l to y o u i f y o u w e re to g iv e a R e g e r o rg an recital th e re !6

Again, on 2 December 1902: N ow , w h e n y o u a re in L e ip z ig th e p u b lish e rs w ill so o n ta k e a d iffe re n t to n e to w a rd m e; ju s t th in k th a t a t p re se n t n o t y e t a sin g le n o te o f m in e h a s b e e n su n g o r p la y e d in L eip zig ! In a n y case, y o u r o rg a n re c ita l th e re w ith o n ly R e g e r w ill c re a te a te rrib le stir, as w ill th e L ie d e ra b en d o f [L u d w ig ] H e ss a n d [F ran z] B e rg e n !7

And a telling request on 16 March 1903: O u r ‘frie n d ’ H o m e y e r m u st b e b e sid e h im s e lf w ith ra g e b y n o w ! Y ou— listen : w h e n y o u d efin itely secu re a p o sitio n at th e C o n serv ato ry , th e n d o all v o u can so th a t I w ill b e ap p o in te d to th e C o n se rv a to ry a t L e ip z ig !8

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 187

Despite the expectations of Reger evidenced here, Piutti’s organ teaching position at the Conservatory was not filled until Straube’s hiring in October 1907. It seems that Straube found his way into the Conservatory via politi­ cal maneuvers involving the organist position at Berlin’s Kaiser-WilhelmGedächtniskirche, left vacant in May 1906 at the death of his former mentor Heinrich Reimann. Exactly one week after Reimann’s death on 24 May, Reger wrote Straube from Munich, strongly urging him not to accept an appointment in Berlin: D e a re st C arl! I w rite q u ic k ly so th a t y o u w ill re c e iv e th is le tte r so o n ! A lre a d y to d a y I w ro te y o u a c a rd in w h ic h I m o st u rg e n tly a d v ise d v o u a g a in st B e rlin (K a ise r W ilh elm G e d ä c h tn isk irc h e? )! D o n o t g o to B erlin ! Y ou w o u ld o n ly b e u n h a p p y in th is fin a n c ia l b u stle — o n ly fin a n c ia l b u stle — a n d in B e rlin y o u w o u ld h a v e m a n y m o re in trig u e s a n d sc h e m e s a g a in st w h ic h to fig h t th a n in L e ip z ig ; b e sid e s, in B e rlin y o u w o u ld n e v e r h a v e th e sa m e g re a t m u sic a l o p p o rtu n itie s as in L e ip z ig (B a c h v e re in !!!!1! A n d y o u d o n o t fulfill th e m a in re q u ire m e n t in B erlin : y o u are n e t Je w ish !— I f th e y o ffe r y o u a p rin c e ly sa la ry — th e n y e s— b u t o th e rw ise nß! I fo r e x a m p le w o u ld n e v e r g o to B erlin ! S o sta y in L e ip z ig !9

It is difficult to determine why Reger argued so strongly against Straube’s possible return to his hometown of Berlin. However, it is important to note that, exactly at the time of his letter to Straube, Reger had resigned his own teaching position at the Munich Academy after having become deeply dis­ illusioned with what he regarded as impossible political opposition to his music.10 It seems reasonable that Reger still hoped for an appointment in Leipzig made possible in part by what must have been in 1906 a growing influence of Straube upon certain key figures there, including the Regerfriendly conductor and Conservatory Director Arthur Nikisch.11 In any case, Straube apparently decided to use the possibility of a move to Berlin to his advantage in Leipzig. On 26 August, he felt his position strong enough to place a series of shrewd demands before Superintendent Pastor Oskar Pank and the St. Thomas Church council. Straube’s letter is revealing on a number of counts, and portions of it are reproduced here: M o st h o n o re d H e rr G e h e im e ra t! T h e c o n te n t o f th is le tte r w ill n o t o c c a sio n a h a p p y re a c tio n . It su c c in c tly d e liv e rs th e n e w s th a t th e q u e stio n o f m y a p p o in t­ m e n t to B e rlin h a s u n fo rtu n a te ly b e c o m e m o re th a n p re ssin g d u rin g th e c o u rse o f th e p a st w eek . I h a d th re e m e e tin g s th e re w ith G e n e ra l S u p e rin te n d e n t K o e h le r an d H is E x c e lle n c y v o n M irb a c h . I h ad n o t g o n e to B e rlin o n a c c o u n t o f th e se m e e tin g s, b u t ra th e r fo r stu d y p u rp o se s in th e R o y a l L ib rary . T h e re , H is E x c e l­ len cy M irb a c h ’s lo n g arm so u g h t m e out. T h e situ a tio n is n o w su c h th a t, i f I w e re to w rite to B e rlin to d ay , ‘I am c o m in g ,’ m y a p p o in tm e n t w o u ld b e a re a lity w h ic h w o u ld p ro b a b ly b e c o m e e ffe c tiv e in N o v e m b e r, ffl] T h e c h u rc h c u ra to riu m

188 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition is w illin g to g u a ra n te e m e a life tim e y e a rly in c o m e o f six th o u sa n d m a rk s fo r m y c h u rc h d u tie s alo n e. In a few y e a rs, I w ill a ssu m e th e e n tire m u sic a l d ire c to r­ sh ip (c h o ir an d o rg an ). O n e h o p e s ... la te r to a d d o rc h e stra to th e S u n d a y se rv ic e s, a n d it is th e in te n tio n o f th e C u ra to riu m , th ro u g h th e p o sitio n o ffe re d m e a t th e G e d ä c h tn isk irc h e , to w in fo r m e a d o m in a n t p o sitio n in m a tte rs o f c h u rc h m u sic sim ila r to th a t a lre a d y lo n g h e ld b y St. T h o m a s C h u rc h tra d itio n a lly ... F u rth e r­ m o re, I d isc u sse d w ith H is E x c e lle n c y v o n M irb a c h th e p o ssib ility o f m y a p p o in t­ m e n t to th e h e a d o f th e A c a d e m ic In stitu te fo r C h u rc h M u sic . H e re p lie d th a t h e o f c o u rse co u ld n o t p ro m ise m e th e p o sitio n in th e e v e n t o f a v acan cy , b u t th a t h e c o u ld p ro m ise to b rin g h is e n tire in flu en ce to b e a r in o rd e r to se c u re m y a p p o in t­ m e n t ... [ f | S in ce I am ... an artist, a n d sin ce th e e x te n t o f m y p e rso n a l in flu en ce is d e c isiv e in m y c h o ic e o f d o m a in , I am n o t ab le to re fu se th e B e rlin p ro p o sa l o u trig h t. F irst, in G e rm a n y ’s larg est c ity I w ill b e a b le to a ttra c t a la rg e r c irc le o f p u p ils th a n in L e ip z ig , a n d a b o v e all I w ill b e a b le to c o m m u n ic a te m y id e a s ab o u t art an d re la te d q u e stio n s in an in te rn a tio n a l m u sic a l scen e. S e c o n d , th e P ru ssia n c o u rt w ill su p p o rt to th e fu rth e st d e g re e all m y a c tiv itie s, a b o v e all c h o ral p e rfo rm a n c e s ... T h ird , I w ill h a v e o n e o f th e la rg e st a n d m o st b e a u tifu l o rg an s in G e rm a n y a t m y d isp o sal. A s a p lay er, I am o f c o u rse d e p e n d e n t u p o n m y in stru m en t. F o u rth , I w ill b e a w a rd e d a re m a rk a b ly h ig h salary. [K] In o rd e r to re m a in in L e ip z ig an d th e re b y to e n su re th e la stin g a n d stre n g th e n e d in flu e n c e o f m y p e rso n he re , th e fu lfillm en t o f th e fo llo w in g fo u r w ish e s se e m s n e c e ssa ry to m e: 1. R e n o v a tio n an d e n la rg e m e n t o f th e St. T h o m a s o rg a n to th e siz e o f th a t in St. N ic h o la s. 2. T h e b in d in g a g re e m e n t o f th e c ity c o u n c il th at, so lo n g as th e B a c h v e re in falls u n d e r m y d irectio n , th e e n tire St. T h o m a s c h o ir m u st sin g in all c h o ra l c o n c e rts o f th e V erein; an d th e n n o t m e re ly a t th e p e rfo rm a n c e, b u t p re v io u sly in a stu d io reh e a rsa l an d also in th e d ress reh earsal. 3. In cre a se o f th e o rg a n ist’s sa la ry to 5 ,0 0 0 m a rk s p e r year. 4. N o t b e c a u se o f p e tty vanity, b u t ra th e r fo r th e stre n g th e n in g o f m y a u th o rity : th e b e sto w a l o f th e title o f a ro y a l pro fesso r. I w o u ld lik e to e m p h a siz e th a t, sin ce o u r last c o n fe re n c e in July, I h a v e ta k e n n o step s to b rin g a b o u t th is a p p o in tm e n t.— O n th e c o n tra ry : in Ju n e I c le a rly a n n o u n c e d to m y p ro p a g a n d a a g e n ts in B e rlin m y in te n tio n n o t to a c c e p t, b u t th e tw o m o st in flu en tial p e rso n a litie s a p p ro a c h e d m e o n th e ir o w n a c c o rd a n d in itia ­ tiv e ... T h e a p p o in tm e n t w ill n o t e n su e o n th e p a rt o f th e p a rish c o u n c il, as a lre a d y m e n tio n e d ab o v e, u n til N o v em b er. H is E x c e lle n c y v o n M irb a c h , h o w e v e r, h as a sk e d m e to in fo rm h im o f m y d e c isio n as so o n as p o ssib le , sin c e , i f I a c c e p t, th e v a c a n c y an d th e a p p lic a tio n s fo r it a lre a d y re c e iv e d m a y b e c lo se d . [U] B y th e w ay : th is p o sitio n h as a ttra c te d th e a tte n tio n o f e v e ry o n e w h o p la y s o rg a n in G erm an y . I am th e o n ly p o o r p e rso n w h o h as n o t p a rtic ip a te d in th is r a c e .12

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 189

It is clear that, by 1906, Straube was very interested in teaching organ stu­ dents in the context of an academic position. His strategy was in fact effec­ tive in every respect, and the council immediately set about meeting each of Straube’s four demands.13 Straube assumed his duties at the Conservatory on 1 October 1907, having become the first faculty member in the institution’s history hired to teach organ exclusively (not, as was common, alongside theory and/or composition).14 His colleagues at the time of his appointment were Paul Homeyer (Gewandhaus organist, employed for organ and theory since 1885) and Carl Heynsen (organist of St. Nicholas Church, employed for organ, piano, and theory since 1901).15 Straube’s royal professorship fol­ lowed in July 1908 after some hesitation on the part of the Ministry of Cul­ ture ‘to grant the desired title to the thirty-three year old now after only three years of service in Saxony.’16 Reger comes to Leipzig: questions o f Straube ’s advocacy The circumstances of Reger’s Leipzig appointments are less clear than Straube’s. On 1 April 1907— exactly one half year before Straube— Reger began his academic duties simultaneously at the University of Leipzig (Uni­ versity Music Director, including directorship of the student choir at the University Church o f St. Paul) and at the Conservatory (master class in composition).17 There is no currently available evidence that would suggest Straube’s involvement in Reger’s hiring. On the contrary, it is possible to argue that Straube’s opinion of Reger during precisely this period would not be consistent with any kind of extended campaign on his part to secure Reger a position in Leipzig. This is most evident in the case of Karl Hasse (1883-1963), who, after having become one of Straube’s first pupils at Leipzig from 1903 to 1905, studied both theory and organ with Reger at the Munich Academy beginning in September 1905. Hasse evidently wrote Straube about the particulars of his study, and Straube’s replies reveal much about his attitudes toward Reger during a period when he himself was attempting to secure a more authoritative position in Leipzig. After Reger’s resignation from the Academy, Straube advised Hasse on 6 March 1906 merely to withdraw from the institution ‘and [to] become Reger’s private pupil. If he doesn’t want that, then come back to L.[eipzig] and go to Frft. [Frankfurt a.M.] on 1 October to [Siegmund von] Hausegger and Iwan Knorr.’18 But already by 12 March, Straube had developed a more extended argument against any continued study with Reger: So, I am really of the opinion that you must go to Frankfurt on 1 October. For the following reasons: with Reger you have stood under the blessed influ­ ence of a genial instinctive nature;—n o w change. Go to Hausegger in order to establish a relationship with a mind which in fact is a product of the highest

190 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

intellectual culture.—More refined and sensitive than almost anyone else I know... There one can learn what style is.—Of course, you will have to conceal this plan from Reger. He doesn’t like Hausegger at all, from the conscious feeling that H.[ausegger] surpasses him in many respects, despite Reger’s much greater instinctive genius ... [f| I regret Reger’s way of interpreting Bach, because my own artistic goals in this regard could be misunderstood as soon as R.[eger] sets up school.—I am very prejudiced against effects such as those you described to me.19 The distinction between intellect and instinct evident here would continue as an integral part of Straube’s thinking about the nature of the artistic pro­ cess. It was in fact the same distinction which fostered the popular images of Reger (the genial but spontaneous instinct) and Straube (the considered but uncreative intellect) emerging at precisely the period of Straube’s letter above.20 The dichotomy Reger-Hausegger which formed the substance of his argument to Hasse is, for example, almost identical to the Reger-David comparison Straube drew in a letter to Bernhard Schwarz nearly forty years later: I find among your ideas the sentence: ‘It is questionable whether intellectual edu­ cation and music really have anything to do with each other.’ This opinion, it seems to me, does not hold water in view of the facts. The great figures of music were intellectually educated, from Sethus Calvisius, Heinrich Schütz, and Johann Hermann Schein up to Richard Wagner ... Johann Nepomuk David’s breadth of knowledge and thinking is astounding; these tools and a deep religious con­ sciousness give him the courage to shape his life’s work in a responsible way before God, that is, in conflict with the surrounding world. Max Reger is sure in instinctive action and thinking, but the lack of intellectual schooling and the absence of a pressing will to considered and sure judgment occasion unevenness in his art. Considering the great talent with which he was gifted, entrance into the circle of the greatest musicians would have been assured him, had not breed­ ing and inherited human weaknesses proved a hindrance. He surpasses David in directness of creative power; on the other hand, he cannot measure up to his suc­ cessor in the ability to construct the large architectural framework of a symphonic movement.21 It is important to add that, in Straube’s thinking, none of this constituted an absolute formula for aesthetic judgments, no matter how clearcut the dis­ tinctions seemed to fall. (Bruckner, with whom Reger had been and would be favorably compared in Straube’s writings, was for him ‘untouched by worldly knowledge’ yet much more highly valued as a composer than the intellectual figure of Brahms.22) But what Straube perceived as Reger’s lack of Geistesbildung might well have caused him to withhold his full

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 191

support from the composer’s efforts to place himself among the educated circles of Leipzig, a city with one of the most honored reputations for both musical composition and humanist education in Germany.23 Furthermore, given Straube’s distinct opinions about Bach performance and his aware­ ness of the association of his name with Reger’s in the public’s imagina­ tion, he may have viewed Reger’s move to his now-home city of Leipzig as potentially damaging to the image he wished to promote of himself as an interpreter of old music. In this sense, Rainer Cadenbach’s question as to ‘whether Straube might have feared encumbrances for himself with Reger’s move to Leipzig’ is not without substance.24 Fritz Stein, who had been Straube’s pupil immediately prior to Reger’s Leipzig appointment (1904-1906), would not have concurred, at least not in 1943: L ik e w ise , o n e fe e ls c le a rly [S tra u b e ’s] in v o lv e m e n t in R e g e r ’s a p p o in tm e n t to L e ip z ig (1 9 0 7 ). H e o p e n e d th e w a y to th e in te lle c tu a l c irc le s o f th e P le iß e city. H e w o n o v e r th e k e y fig u res o f th e U n iv e rsity fo r R eg er, w h o se a p p o in tm e n t as U n iv e rsity M u sic D ire c to r e n su e d o n ly as a re su lt o f c o n fid e n c e in S tra u b e ’s ju d g m e n t an d au th o rity . T oday, o n e c a n h a rd ly im a g in e th e g ra v ity o f th is re s p o n ­ sib ility. R e g e r’s p o sitio n as a n a rtist w a s a t th e tim e still a m a tte r o f g re a t c o n tro ­ v e rsy in th e b ro a d p u b lic sp ectru m . E sp e c ia lly in L e ip z ig , h e w a s re g a rd e d as a su b v e rsiv e fo rce o f th e w o rst k in d b y th e p re ss a n d b y th e c o n se rv a tiv e c liq u e o f th e C o n se rv a to ry lo y al to th e tra d itio n o f C arl R e in e c k e . . . 25

Even at first glance, it seems an overzealous claim that Reger owed his University position solely to Straube’s intervention, and Stein’s statement is certainly indicative of the kind of tendentiousness into which the 1943 Festschrift frequently lapses. In February 1907, Reger’s appointment as University Music Director met with opposition in the University itself, so that a decision as to his employment there was postponed. This opposition probably grew from a distaste for Reger’s music,26 but the official argument seems to have centered around the rather superficial point of the compos­ er’s Catholicity, making it impossible for him to serve as organist of the University Church of St. Paul, a position traditionally paired with the Directorship. Available evidence would indicate that the decisive voice for Reger’s case was not Straube’s, but rather that of the influential Geheimrat Adolf Wach, member of the Gewandhaus’s governing board and son-in-law of Felix Mendelssohn. The positive decision of the University was reached after Wach’s letter of 17 February 1907 to the Saxon Ministry of Culture, in which he rationalized the relationship of the organist position to the Directorship as a ‘coincidental question.’27 The substantial issue, Wach argued, lay not in Reger’s faith, but rather in his eminent position as a composer:

192 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition H e rr M a x R e g e r is n o w su c h a fo rce, o n e m a y say w ith o u t e x a g g e ra tio n th a t h e is o n e o f th e m o st p ro m in e n t liv in g m u sic ia n s. A n d i f I d o n o t a lw a y s a c c e p t h is w o rk s u n co n d itio n a lly , I d o re c o g n iz e th e g re a t m a ste ry a n d e m in e n t ta le n t, th e h o n e st artistry a n d th e d e e p se rio u sn e ss [E rnst] o f th e m a n ... ffl] T h e a d e q u a c y o f th e p o sitio n w o u ld b e a ssu re d to H e rr R e g e r b y a te a c h in g p o st a t th e C o n se rv a ­ tory, w h ic h co u ld le n d th e la tte r a n ew b rillia n c e (w h ic h it b a d ly n e e d s!).28

Particularly since the Conservatory retained strong ideological ties to its founder, Mendelssohn, and since Wach used the possibility of a Conserva­ tory appointment to strengthen Reger’s case at the University, these words surely carried weight. There exists no such written evidence from Straube, and in any case Stein’s claim that Reger’s election followed ‘only as a result of confidence in Straube’s judgment and authority’ is clearly inaccu­ rate. Somewhat misleading as well is Stein’s estimate of Reger’s categori­ cally negative reception in the press, ‘especially in Leipzig.’ Here follows the announcement of his University appointment in Leipzig’s Musikalisches Wochenblatt: M a x R e g e r h as b e e n e le c te d th e su c c e sso r to P ro f. H .[e in ric h ] Z ö lln e r a s U n iv e r­ sity M u sic D ire c to r in L eip zig . W h e re a s R e g e r’s e le c tio n to th is p o st is a lre a d y a reality , p re lim in a ry n e g o tia tio n s seem to h o v e r o v e r h is a d m itta n c e in to th e fa c ­ u lty o f th e L e ip z ig R o y al C o n serv ato ry . O n e h o p e s th a t th e se n e g o tia tio n s, to o , w ill b e su ccessfu l, sin c e o n e c o u ld o n ly c o n g ra tu la te th e In stitu te i f it se c u re d fo r th e su b je c t o f m u sic a l th e o ry a n d c o u n te rp o in t a n a u th o rity su c h as R e g e r.29

Reger ’s music at the Conservatory By the time Reger joined Straube in Leipzig in 1907, the composer was well aware both of his friend’s professional stature and of the respect attached to the city’s musical institutions. Consequently, he began to promote heav­ ily the performance of his own works there, particularly at the Gewandhaus. At the Conservatory, Straube’s presence affirmed Reger’s own efforts as an organ repertory which had traditionally placed composers such as Rhein­ berger and Guilmant alongside Bach began to be overhauled in favor of Reger and Liszt.30 But beyond Straube’s undeniably central role in a Reger reception based in part at the Leipzig Conservatory, it is probably important to point out at this juncture two facts which appear to have been overlooked in all previous literature on the subject: namely, that (1) Straube was not the pioneer of Reger’s organ music in Saxony, despite the later (and justi­ fiable) association of both men with the musical establishment of Leipzig; and (2) Reger’s music was not introduced at the Conservatory via the organ, although the critical position of his organ works in Straube’s historical/

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 193

pedagogical thinking would gradually create an indissoluble link between repertory and institution. As to the first point: a performance history of Reger’s organ music in Saxony would have to begin not with Straube, but rather with the long-time Zwickau organist Paul Gerhardt (1867-1946).31 Ironically enough, Gerhardt was a Leipzig native and, as a pupil of Reinecke and Homeyer, a product of the very establishment which both Reger and Straube sought to free from what they regarded as an entrenched conserva­ tism. By the turn of the century, Gerhardt had begun to perform Reger’s works at Zwickau, whereas Straube’s principal field of activity was still cen­ tered in Germany’s western regions. Already at the end of 1899, Reger dedi­ cated to Gerhardt his Fantasy on the Chorale "Straf ’ mich nicht in deinem Zorn ' op. 40/2, presumably in gratitude for the latter’s enthusiasm.32 Along with Straube, Gerhardt had been an applicant for the position of organist at St. Thomas Church/Leipzig in 1902, although it appears that Reger placed his support squarely behind Straube’s candidacy.33 As to the second point: archival materials at the present-day Leipzig Hochschule confirm that Reger’s music first made its way into Conservatory performances with the small-scale Lied Waldeinsamkeit, the third song in the first volume of Schlichte Weisen op. 76, composed early in 1904. The work appeared on examination programs from 17 March 1905 and 2 March 1906, performed by students from the voice studios of Marie Hedmondt and Eugen Lindner, respectively.34 Because of its significance in what would become a long performance history of Reger’s music at the Leipzig Conservatory, the first of these programs is reproduced here as Figure 4.1. Reger’s work was grouped with songs of Brahms, Strauss, and Viardot. Reger’s organ music appeared first on Conservatory programs in 1906. Fritz Stein, who at the time studied organ simultaneously with Paul Homeyer and Straube, offered the following interesting account in 1953: A s a stu d e n t o f th e C o n se rv a to ry a n d a t th e sa m e tim e p riv a te p u p il a n d c o n fid a n t o f S trau b e, I sto o d m o re o r less b e tw e e n th e e n e m y c a m p s. It w a s o fte n n o t e a sy to n e g o tia te th e re su ltin g d iffic u ltie s a n d te n sio n s. In a lm o st e v e ry m e e tin g w ith o ld P ro fe sso r H o m e y e r I h a d to liste n to h is a tta c k s [S tic h e le ie n ] o n S tra u b e , a n d so m e lesso n s w e re e n tire ly a b so rb e d in k e e n d isc u ssio n s a ro u n d te c h n ic a l an d in te rp re tiv e q u e stio n s, th e sig n ific a n c e o f w h ic h e n tire ly e sc a p e d h im . T h e po rtly , so m e w h a t w h im sic a l, n e v e rth e le ss b a sic a lly g o o d -n a tu re d o d d b a ll still c o m p le te ly a d v o c a te d th e o ld sc h o o l o f o rg a n p la y in g , w h ic h v a lu e d o n ly a c le a n m a n u a l a n d p e d a l te c h n iq u e , a n d h e w a s a n y th in g b u t a c u p id u s re ru m n o v a ru m . O f m o re re c e n t o rg a n rep erto ry , h e w o u ld a llo w L isz t in a p in c h , w h o s e Fantasy and Fugue on BACH h e a llo w e d m e to p la y o n a stu d e n t re c ita l o n ly a fte r su s­ ta in e d req u ests. R e g e r’s o rg a n w o rk s w e re fo r h im o b je c ts o f th e stro n g e st d is­ p le a su re . O f B a c h , h e k n e w o n ly th o se o rg a n w o rk s w h ic h h e h a d e d ite d in a c o lle c tio n w ith fin g e rin g a n d p e d a lin g . F ro m th e n o b le o rg a n is t’s sc h o o l, th e

194

Königliches Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Examination program of 17 March 1905, pp. 2-3

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Figure 4.1

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 195 c h o ra le p re lu d e s o f B a c h , h e e m p lo y e d in h is te a c h in g so le ly th e little o rg a n c h o ­ rale

Herzlich tut mich verlangen

[B W V 7 2 7 ]. A H o m e y e r le sso n o ffe re d , th e re ­

fo re, little stim u la tio n ... A se rio u s c o n flic t th re a te n e d o u r re la tio n sh ip w h e n th e tim e a rriv e d to se le c t a p ie c e fo r th e p u b lic e x a m in a tio n re c ita l. H o m e y e r w ish e d B a c h ’s g re a t

Fantasy and Fugue in G minor

[B W V 5 4 2 ] o r th e

Passacaglia

[B W V 5 8 2 ], w h e re a s I a b so lu te ly w a n te d to p la y a R e g e r w o rk . A fte r lo n g n e g o ­ tia tio n s, in w h ic h a t la st e v e n th e u n d e rsta n d in g e x e c u tiv e D ire c to r o f th e C o n ­ serv ato ry , Ju stiz ra t [Dr. P au l] R ö n tsc h , b e c a m e in v o lv e d o n m y b e h a lf, H o m e y e r b e g ru d g in g ly g a v e w ay. A n d so, in th e su m m e r o f 1906, w h e n th e o rg a n c o m ­ p o s e r R e g e r h a d a lre a d y lo n g b e fo re b ro k e n th ro u g h e lse w h e re , th e re so u n d e d fo r th e first tim e u p o n th e o ld m e c h a n ic a l c o n c e rt h a ll o rg a n o f th e L e ip z ig C o n s e rv a ­ to ry a R e g e r w o rk : h is

Chorale Fantasy: ‘Wie schön leucht ’uns der Morgenstern ’

(o p . 4 0 n o . 1). A fte r g o o d su c c e ss a n d th e p u b lic re c o g n itio n a c c o rd e d th e C o n ­ se rv a to ry fo r its ‘p ro g re ssiv e n e ss,’ H o m e y e r, to o , w a s sa tisfie d a n d e v e n p ro u d th a t o n e o f h is ‘s tu d e n ts’ h a d p la y e d R e g e r fo r th e first tim e . A n d S tra u b e , w ith w h o m I h a d o f c o u rse stu d ie d th e p ie c e secretly , w a s th e h a p p ie st o f all a b o u t th is ‘w h ite lie .’35

Much could be said about Stein’s recollections, which are clearly intended to show Straube as a revolutionary outsider received only with reluctance by a short-sighted Leipzig musical establishment. By 1953, of course, there was nothing new about the progressive-conservative dichotomy which had underlain—implicitly if not explicitly—virtually every positive discussion of Straube (and Reger, for that matter) since the turn of the century, although it is difficult to know if the situation was as clandestine as Stein suggests. Appendix 2 certainly confirms the existence of a so-called ‘conservative’ repertory at the Conservatory around 1900 from which Bach’s chorale-based works are noticeably absent.36 But it is important to recognize that the story Stein relates—that Reger’s organ music infiltrated the Conservatory’s organ studios via his own performance initiatives and the political machinations of Straube— is not entirely accurate. The examination recital in which Stein participated occurred on 23 March 1906, and, as related above, he performed Reger’s Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wie schön leucht’t uns der Morgenstern’ op. 40/1. Stein neglected to report, however, that the Homeyer student Walter Eschenbach had performed, also in context of an examination recital, the Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Ein ’f este Burg ist unser Gott ’ op. 27 some two and a half weeks earlier on 6 March. The two programs, the fourth and eighth examination recitals of the term respectively, are reproduced here as Figures 4.2 and 4.3. Because Stein’s version of events attempts to show in the clear­ est possible way Straube’s (and his own) seminal role in Reger reception at the Conservatory, and because there exists no demonstrable connection between Straube and Homeyer’s pupil Eschenbach (he apparently did not, like Stein, engage in covert lessons with the ‘Freund und Vorkämpfer Max

196 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Figure 4.2

Königliches Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Examination program of 6 March 1906, p. 1

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 197

Figure 4.3

Königliches Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Examination program of 23 March 1906, p. 1

198 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Regers’), it is difficult to escape the probability of Stein’s deliberate mis­ representation of the truth.37 And given this disparity, it is not at all clear whether attitudes in Conservatory circles were in fact as unyielding as Stein suggested.38 From the documented performances of the Leipzig Conservatory given as Appendices 1 and 2, it is clear that, after Straube’s employment in October 1907, Reger’s music gained a certain prominence in the course of study for organists. It is equally clear that the Conservatory’s organ department stood more or less alone in its advocacy of Reger, at least during the century’s first two decades. A more balanced picture favoring chamber music along­ side organ pieces appeared first in the 1920s, although it should be noted that Reger’s Lieder maintained a fairly constant presence from 1905 onwards, if only via the somewhat elementary songs of the Schlichte Weisen op. 76.39 That Reger quickly became frustrated with this situation is apparent from a letter of 30 October 1909 to Reinhold Anschütz, one of the most influential members of both the Gewandhaus and the Conservatory boards: A t th e R o y al S ch o o l o f M u sic in B e rlin , w h ic h h a s th e re p u ta tio n o f b e in g so h o rrib ly b a c k w a rd , [Josef] Jo a c h im a t th e tim e a rra n g e d fo r th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f

Serenade o p . 95 in th e o rc h e stra c lass. R e c e n tly th e y p la y e d th e re m y Hiller Variations fo r o rc h e stra op. 100 a n d R ic h a rd S tra u ss’ Tod und Verklärung. O n e

my

also p la y s z e a lo u sly m y p ia n o p ie c e s a t o th e r B e rlin c o n se rv a to rie s! Is a n y th in g lik e th is h a p p e n in g h e re a t o u r R o y a l C o n se rv a to ry o f M u sic ? W h e n ? ? 40

Given the available records through 1909, Reger was evidently justified in his claims. To the extent that archival materials are reliable, it is in fact pos­ sible to say that, with the exception of organ music, no major work of Reger appeared on Conservatory programs until piano faculty members Otto Weinreich and Max Wünsche performed the Variations and Fugue on a Theme o f Beethoven for two pianos op. 86 at the Reger Memorial concert on 27 October 1916.41 Furthermore, it seems that Reger’s wish that his orchestral works be performed at the Leipzig Conservatory did not become a reality until 1927, with the performance of his Variations and Fugue on a Theme o f W. A. Mozart op. 132 on 3 July of that year.

‘The soul of the German people’: Straube and a nationalist organ repertory All of these observations contrast starkly with the attention paid to Reger’s organ works in Straube’s studio and, later, in the studios of those students from his circle who taught at Leipzig. During the course of the twentieth cen­ tury, an extensive body of literature—almost all of it German—has grown

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 199

up around questions of performance style in Reger’s organ music and how that music is best interpreted in the light of various movements toward both ‘reformed’ organ design and ‘authentic’ playing. Rather than assigning too much significance to the practical solutions resulting from these discussions (categorical rejection of Reger as incompatible with the wahre Orgel; cre­ ative réévaluation of his music in terms of quasi-Baroque ideals; various realizations of ‘authentic’ Romanticism as represented by Straube’s early ideas or Reger’s own performance style42), it is perhaps more important to identify the deeply implicit force responsible for directing attention to the issue in the first place: there exists an apparent need among German organ­ ists, sustained now for almost a hundred years, to deal with the Reger issue urgently and zealously. The passionate and protracted exchanges incited by Helmut Walcha’s 1952 renunciation of Reger on stylistic grounds and Günter Hartmann’s 1991 critical monograph Karl Straube und seine Schule evi­ dence the central place which both Reger’s music and Straube’s organ school occupy in the German organist’s psyche. Apart from the mechanics of per­ formance questions with which much of the present study concerns itself, it is essential to recognize that the entire Reger-Straube organ phenomenon rests on a much larger, thoroughly Germanic cultural base, an observation not valid for any other composer of similar prominence in German reperto­ ries.43 Throughout both their careers, a nationalist ideology heavily informed both Reger’s and Straube’s thinking about contemporary composition in relation to music history, and, since that ideology is ultimately responsible for the prominence of Reger’s organ music in the Leipzig curriculum, it would be well to examine it in some detail here. Was ist deutsch?: German ‘Geist ’and Bach ’s ghost In January 1933, Friedrich Högner, who had been Straube’s pupil in 1921-1922 and had joined him on the Conservatory faculty in 1929, pub­ lished a short gratulatory essay on the occasion of Straube’s sixtieth birthday. The article took the form of an open letter and included the following sen­ tences near the end: Y ou, to o , a lw a y s k n e w th a t th e p o o d e x a m p le is th e b e st p e d a g o g ic a l m e a n s. A n d so th e sa m e se v e rity p re se n t in y o u r te a c h in g a lso h e ld sw a y o v e r y o u r o w n a rtis­ tic ac tiv ity as o rg a n ist, c o n d u c to r, a n d e d ito r [B e a rb e ite r] o f B a c h c a n ta ta s a n d p a ssio n s, o f H a n d e l o ra to rio s a n d m a n y o th e r w o rk s. T h is d e v o te d , tire le s s ser­ v ic e to a rt o rig in a te s in a n o b le a n d id e a listic u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e e th ic a l p o w e r a n d ta sk o f m u sic . It is th is sp e c ific a lly G e rm a n ic [g e rm a n isc h ! o u tlo o k to w h ic h m u sic d ire c ts its e lf n o t o n ly as a b e a u tifu l o rn a m e n t o f h u m a n e x iste n c e , n e v e r o n ly as an in g e n io u s g a m e , b u t ra th e r a s a p o w e rfu l life fo rc e w h ic h e m b ra c e s th e w h o le p e rso n as sc u lp tre ss o f th e m in d [des G eistes] a n d so u l. fl|] T h e re fo re m a y

200 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition y o u r a c tio n s, in th e ir in te n tio n s an d in th e ir e ffects, be re g a rd e d as w o rk o n th e so u l o f th e G erm a n p e o p le .44

These are loaded words, appearing as they do on the cusp of the Machter­ greifung, and they associate very easily with the rhetoric of Goebbels’ pro­ pagandizing machine. Straube’s complete and enthusiastic agreement with Högner’s sentiments is nowhere more evident than in a letter from the same period (8 February 1933) to his former pupil, then St. Thomas organist Günther Ramin, on the subject of Ramin’s American recital tour of that year. In 1958 and 1981, Charlotte Ramin published edited versions of Straube’s letter which effectively mollified the full force of his thinking. However, the text in its entirety is so illuminating, particularly with regard to Högner’s thoughts only a month before, that it is reproduced here for the first time: M y d e a r R am in o ! T h a n k y o u fo r b o th letters, fro m F ra u C h a rlo tte a n d fro m y o u , w h ic h w e re aw a ite d a rd e n tly h e re , sin ce y o u r jo u rn e y to th e U S A is a G e rm a n u n d e rta k in g , in its e ffe c t m u c h m o re c o n se q u e n tia l th a n th e u n d e rta k in g s o f o u r g re a t co n d u c to r-p rim a d o n n a s. W e c a n n o t th a n k y o u e n o u g h th a t y o u h a v e w o n su c h a v ic to ry fo r G e rm a n art, a v ic to ry th e e n d re su lt o f w h ic h w ill b e th e m o re sig n ific a n t in th a t y o u d id n o t w ish to g iv e y o u rs e lf a n in te rn a tio n a l im a g e , n o r d id y o u in fact d o so , b u t ra th e r as a G e rm a n m a ste r p re se n te d y o u r a rt to th e w illin g a n d th e u n w illin g . T h e su c c e ss ju stifia b ly a c c o rd e d y o u is a su c c e ss o f G e rm a n sp iritu a lity [G e istig k e it], a n d y o u h a v e sto o d u p fo r th e d ig n ity o f o u r sp iritu a l [geistig en ] cu ltu re. Y ou w e re a p io n e e r fo r it, a n d w e h a v e v e ry fe w like y o u . F o r all th is G e rm a n y c a n n o t th a n k y o u en o u g h . A t issu e is n o th in g o th e r th a n th e d iffu sio n o f G e rm a n su p e rio rity in are a s o f E n g lish a n d F re n c h in flu ­ en ce. T h a t y o u w e re su c c e ssfu l in th is b re a k th ro u g h , so le ly d u e to y o u r a b ility a n d artistry, th a t is a su c c e ss th e su fficien tly h ig h e stim a tio n fo r w h ic h w o rd s c a n h a rd ly be fo u n d . I re jo ic e w h o le h e a rte d ly w ith y o u a b o u t th is, a n d I h o p e a n d w ish o n ly o n e th in g : th a t all th e c o n c e rts still to c o m e w ill fall w o rth ily in to th is triu m p h a l p ro c e ssio n , th a t all m a lic e o f th e o b je c t [T ü ck e d es O b je c te s] in, aro u n d , a n d th ro u g h th e o rg a n w ill re m a in n e u tralized ! ! T h e n th e w h o le u n d e rta k ­ in g w ill b e a m a g n ific e n t th in g w h ic h n o o n e p re d ic te d , b u t w h ic h a t o n c e p la c e s o n e a re a o f G erm a n a rt in th e fo re g ro u n d , p re se n tin g it a t a le v e l o f a c c o m p lish ­ m e n t u n e x p e c te d b y o u r w e ste rn n e ig h b o rs o n th e E u ro p e a n c o n tin e n t. I re g a rd th e w h o le th in g as o n e o f G e rm a n y ’s g re a te st su c c e sse s in in te rn a tio n a l c u ltu ra l life, sin c e I k n o w w e ll w ith w h a t c o n te m p t th e G e rm a n o rg a n ist w a s re g a rd e d in o th e r c o u n trie s o n ly 2 0 y e a rs ag o . W h e n in th is re g a rd a tra n sfo rm a tio n ta k e s p la c e , w h e n th e p e o p le o u tsid e k n o w th a t in G e rm a n y a su c c e ssio n is p re se n t w o rth y o f its g re a t tra d itio n , th e n th is is a n e n o rm o u s su ccess! A ll th e b e st, m y d e a r friend! T ake c a re o f y o u rs e lf w h e n p o ssib le , b u t n e v e rth e le ss d o y o u r d u ty to th e u tm o st as a v a lia n t so ld ie r!— A th o u sa n d g ree tin g s to y o u an d F ra u C h a rlo tte . F a ith fu lly as a lw a y s, y o u r K a rl S tra u b e 45

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 201

It is not the purpose of this study to analyze Straube’s much contested rela­ tionship with the regime of 1933-1945, and I would suggest that his national­ ist thinking is (in any case, but particularly in the present context) a larger issue than the political associations with which it is connected. Hartmann has already convincingly demonstrated Straube’s early entrance into the National Socialist party, and, given both the kind of overblown nationalism so evident above and the extreme economic hardships engendered by an experimental republican government (hardships to which musical enterprises were cer­ tainly not immune), it should not be difficult to understand the hopes Straube placed in Hitler.46 But it would be misleading to perceive Straube’s attitudes solely with respect to the regime they led him to embrace. In Berlin, Straube had matured in a highly literate household at the very center of a united German empire. Furthermore, he had inherited from his mentor Reimann an organic view of music history for which the notion of deutsche Superiorität around Bach was self-evident.47 This viewpoint finds expression in the char­ acter of Straube’s repertory as well as in the composers he chose to edit: Alte Meister des Orgelspiels implied for him Alte deutsche Meister des Orgel­ spiels in every case, a nationalist sentiment fundamentally at odds with, say, Alexandre Guilmant’s editorial rationale during the same period. Reger, on the other hand, shared Straube’s views wholeheartedly. It is instructive to compare Straube’s effusive language above with that of Reger some thirty-three years earlier. Reger wrote the minor composer Joseph Renner about the latter’s organ Sonata in G minor on 26 November 1900: T h is is a lto g e th e r in te re stin g , n e v e r b o rin g o rg a n m u sic w h ic h to d a y is c o m p o se d m o re an d m o re se ld o m . W h a t is so e x tre m e ly a ttra c tiv e to m e a b o u t y o u r w o rk is its ab so lu te ly G e rm a n a ttitu d e , w h ic h in th is c a se (I m e a n th e d e d ic a tio n to G u ilm a n t) is to b e re g a rd e d all th e m o re h ig h ly , b e c a u se , d e sp ite th e d e d ic a tio n , y o u m a k e ‘n o c o m p lim e n t’ to th e F re n c h o rg a n sty le , b u t ra th e r re m a in ste a d fa stly G e rm a n . I g re e t w ith p a rtic u la r jo y th e a p p e a ra n c e o f e v e ry G e rm a n o rg a n c o m ­ p o s e r w h o carrie s th e sta m p o f p u re , u n a d u lte ra te d G e rm a n c h a ra c te r [D e u tsc h ­ tu m ], sin c e u n fo rtu n a te ly o n e m u st o fte n w itn e ss h o w G e rm a n o rg a n c o m p o se rs im ita te th e F re n c h a n d E n g lish sty le. I sa lu te y o u th e re fo re w ith p a rtic u la rly k e e n jo y as o n e o f th e v e ry fe w w h o a re c a lle d to h o ld h ig h th e b a n n e r o f th e tru e , ‘u n a d u lte ra te d ’ o rg a n art. ffl] W h a t I u n d e rsta n d as ‘G e rm a n ’ in o rg a n m u sic is o f c o u rse n o t c h a u v in ism — it is c o m p le te ly u n p o litic a l. T h e e x p re ssio n ‘G e rm a n ’ is fo r m e sim p ly a ‘n o tio n o f g e n re ’: w e c o u ld ju s t as w e ll sa y ‘B a c h -lik e ,’ i.e. b o m o f th e classic a l sp irit. A n d n o w : c e rta in ly n o o n e c a n a c c u se m e in th e le a st o f b a c k w a rd te n d e n c ie s. O n th e co n tra ry , I m a rc h o n th e ‘le ft s id e .’ B u t re g a rd ­ in g o rg a n m u sic , I c a n say o n th e b a sis o f th e m o st th o ro u g h stu d y : ‘A ll o rg a n m u sic w h ic h is n o t in w a rd ly re la te d to B a c h is im p o s s ib le .’ N a tu ra lly , th is sta te ­ m e n t m a y n o t b e u n d e rsto o d a n d u se d p e d a n tic a lly . B u t o u r F re n c h a n d E n g lish

202 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

organ composers are the purest ‘antipodes’ of Bach, and I must completely reject their organ music!48 Again, it proves alarmingly easy to wed all of these statements—Högner’s, Straube’s, and Reger’s—not only to comparatively benign notions of German cultural pride but also to the menacing policies of German imperialism which ended in the atrocities of Auschwitz. Straube’s image of the tapferer Soldat fighting for the victory of German art is very close to Reger’s rhetoric around the ‘Fahne der echten “unverfälschten” Orgelkunst,’ and Högner’s ‘Arbeit an der Seele des deutschen Volkes’ stood at the very heart of the Nazi enterprise. But for Reger, Straube, and their circles, it is in fact very difficult to say with any degree of certainty if and when Straube’s ‘cultural soldier’ might identify with Germany’s political soldiers, either on the fronts of the World Wars or on the staffs of Hitler’s concentration camps.49 The fact that, already by 1900, Reger took care to deny any relationship between artistic and political arenas probably says something significant about how easily the line between aesthetic judgments and nationalist leanings was blurred during the period. For the present purpose, it is not very important whether, in the minds of men like Reger and Straube, the notion of German musical superiority neces­ sarily led to the more general political notion of German cultural (and racial) supremacy. There are, however, two critical ideas imbedded in the preced­ ing citations and in others like them. Both are intimately bound up with the larger notion of German autonomy discussed above, and both had enormous consequences for the shaping of a more or less canonical organ repertory at Leipzig for which Reger’s music was central. The first of these, explicitly stated by Reger, is the way J. S. Bach became the norm against which all organ music—German and foreign—had to be assessed. O f course, the idea of a great German musical tradition rooted in Bach had become by 1900 a significant part of Germany’s cultural identity, and the notion that Bach rep­ resented the zenith of musical craftsmanship and expression was thus not unique to Reger and Straube.50 But for them, Bach’s music contained some­ thing essential to the way organ music must be composed. Essential elements of a genial personal style became quasi-objective norms for aesthetic judg­ ment.51 For Reger the composer and Straube the performer/pedagogue, this view naturally resulted in a set of standards, at best imprecisely defined (e.g. counterpoint and old forms, eschewal of both pianistic devices and senti­ mental approach to melody), against which past and present composers were evaluated. Alongside this idea ran the corollary that, even if foreign compos­ ers were successful in approaching Bach on a technical level, they would not be able to assimilate his thoroughly German character (Geist). Reger’s own conviction in this regard is paralleled by such statements, quite removed

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 203

from each other in time, as that of Heinrich Reimann’s otherwise positive assessment of Widor in 1896: [T]he composer certainly has Bach in the head and fingers, but not in the heart... This is due to the [French] national character as well as to the development of the composer himself, who strove earnestly to make sense of the Bach style accord­ ing to his subjective feeling. For him, the possibility of learning a sympathetic feeling with Bach’s spirit was never presented. To blame Widor for this would be as unjust as it were foolish.52 and Straube’s evaluation of André Pirro’s L ’Esthéthique de J. S. Bach (Paris, 1907) in 1944: I do not believe that Pirro’s ‘dictionnaire de la langue de Bach’ is the key to Bach’s art. It is rather the need of the French spirit [Geist] to capture through ‘ratio’ that which is not fully comprehensible to it: the spiritual [geistige] individ­ uality of the great Protestant Thomaskantor. [For Pirro] the labelling of [Bach’s] themes is supposed to be the means to a completely clear insight into the mystical form.53 For none of these men—Reger, Reimann, Straube— followed from this attitude a categorical rejection of (in this case) French composition or French playing.54 But what constituted good and legitimate organ music in Western culture was defined by the extent to which that music convincingly approached the standards of Bach, and, since the issue embraced Geist as well as Technik, Künstlerschaft as well as Können, only a German could be entirely successful. Furthermore, insofar as the sentiment appears to have remained relatively stable throughout the social upheavals of 1871-1945, it is possible to concur with Reger, at least in part: the idea that in some sense one ought to become ‘Bach-like,’ while not escaping a certain chauvinism, may in fact be ‘completely unpolitical.’ The second idea has to do with Högner’s ‘specifically Germanic outlook,’ ‘a noble and idealistic understanding of the ethical power and task of music.’ Aside from the fact that there is nothing ‘specifically Germanic’ about a philosophy of ethics and music, the issue was nevertheless perceived in a nationalist guise, and it heavily informed Straube’s way of thinking about the history of both organ music specifically and church music generally. For Straube, Bach’s greatness lay not only in a sovereign compositional technique, but also in a metaphysical ‘connection between heaven and earth [which] gives Bach’s art [the] calmness of spiritual saturation’ [‘Ruhe des Durchgeistigten’].55 This enigmatic Ruhe des Durchgeistigten, which involves the intersection of mind/intellect and spirit/soul discussed above in relation to Geist, is the implicit or explicit criterion behind Straube’s

204 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

assessment of many composers.56 Because it easily blurs into notions of a relatively naive Christian piety—naïve, that is, in the view of those who subscribe to the ‘fond impertinence’57 of German rationalism—it is also pri­ marily responsible for Straube’s effective rejection of nineteenth-century organ repertories. Straube’s historical interests predisposed him to regard the period after 1750 not only or even primarily as a musical epoch, but more precisely as an intellectual movement the foundation of which did not favor the production of organ music, particularly chorale-based organ music, with any kind of inner (i.e. geistig) integrity. Accordingly, even if a composer of the Enlightenment period brought a genial technique to organ composition, the music was at best merely epigonal without the kind of spiritual (again, geistig) soundness Straube believed common to the Protestant keyboard composers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This two-sided, holistic aesthetic, recognizing the significance of a more or less objective technical skill (Geist = mind) alongside a very subjective and culturallybound spiritual component (Geist = spirit), is operative in virtually every extant discussion of Straube on music. It is behind his positive assessment of both Bruckner and Liszt, as well as his heavily qualified admiration of Brahms: A t th e m o m e n t I am stu d y in g in th e B ach V erein B ra h m s ’ ‘D e u tsc h e s R e q u ie m ’ [op. 4 5]. C e rta in ly a n o b le , b e a u tifu l w o rk o f art; n e v e rth e le ss w ith w h a t little o rig in a lity is th is w h o le p sy c h ic fe e lin g an d th in k in g a b o u t d e a th a n d th e h e re a f­ te r b o m anew . B ra h m s is an e d u c a te d p e rso n w h o n e v e r h as th e c o u ra g e fo r th e o rig in s an d so u rc e s o f life. H e is in all re sp e c ts in h ib ite d b y c u ltu ra lly in h e rite d fo rc e s w h ic h c o n d itio n h is in te lle c t [G eist] a n d re stric t h is p o w er. T h e w h o le art o f th is m a n , as b e a u tifu l as it is in a p u re ly m u sic a l re sp e c t, a lw a y s strik e s m e as seco n d ary . T h e re is n o im m e d ia c y in th is b e in g , a n d h e n c e th is m u sic m isse s th a t w h ic h is lib e ra tin g a n d ele v a tin g . W e ca n all e x p e rie n c e th is k in d o f sp iritu a lity [G eistig k e it]; th e re is n o th in g ab o v e u s w h ic h w e m u st w o rsh ip .58

and Mendelssohn: It w a s M e n d e ls s o h n ... w h o later, th ro u g h th e p u b lic a tio n o f h is six o rg a n so n a ta s [op. 65], b ro u g h t a b o u t th e m o st stim u la tin g a n d e n c o u ra g in g a tm o sp h e re in th e a re a o f o rg a n co m p o sitio n . L e t u s n o t, fro m th e sta n d p o in t o f h isto ry , b e little th is u n q u e stio n a b ly g re a t se rv ic e ; b u t let u s a lso b e h o n e st e n o u g h to re a liz e th a t, fo r u s w h o k n o w B a c h , th e se so n atas c a n in n o w a y b e m a tu re , fa u ltle ss w o rk s o f art. E v e n w e re w e to o v e rlo o k th e c o m p o sitio n a l te c h n iq u e , in flu e n c e d as it is b y p ia n o sty le, th e tre a tm e n t o f th e c h o ra le s m u st n e v e rth e le ss g iv e rise to stro n g o b jectio n ! ... W e re c o g n iz e th e e rro r o f M e n d elsso h n . F o r h im , th e c h o ra le is a p u re ly fo rm a listic e le m e n t w h ic h h e e m p lo y s w ith o u t in n e r n ec e ssity , fo r e x tra ­ m u sic a l re a so n s, so to sp e a k .59

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 205

From this kind of thinking follows clearly Straube’s lack of advocacy for the organ pieces of Brahms, Mendelssohn, and Schumann, as well as for the sentimental melodic palette of Rheinberger. Even a cursory survey of the repertories in Appendices 1-5 reveals that, with certain notable excep­ tions,60 the organ music produced in the 150 years following Bach’s death was shunned—or at least devalued—by Straube both in his playing and in his teaching. This of course did not go unnoticed in the Mendelssohn city of Leipzig, where conservative circles may have regarded Straube’s attitudes as bordering on iconoclasm. Likewise, Straube’s pupils did not necessarily mirror his own preferences. To offer but two examples with respect to Men­ delssohn: the single performance of Mendelssohn’s music Straube offered in the St. Thomas Motetten between 1903 and 1914 (the Sonata in A major op. 65/3, on 30 January of the anniversary year 1909) was ‘repeated by demand’61 on 6 February. And when the new organist of St. Thomas, Günther Ramin, performed the Sonata in D minor op. 65/6 at the Gewandhaus in December 1919, Max Unger remarked dryly in the Neue Zeitschrift-. H is a d v o c a c y fo r th e o rg a n w o rk s o f M e n d e lsso h n a n d R h e in b e rg e r, w h ic h so m e m ig h t still a c k n o w le d g e as e x e rc ise p ie c e s, is re c o g n iz e d w ith p a rtic u la r g ra titu d e .62

Straube ’s Reger image Straube’s philosophical and historical interests led him to think about music as a primarily societal phenomenon, and the work of any composer was only valid insofar as the dominant world view out of which the music grew was valid, or insofar as the composer was able to transcend cultural forces and offer something ‘liberating and elevating.’ One must come to terms with Straube’s complex mind in order to answer what is perhaps the most basic (and seldom asked) question surrounding his relationship to Max Reger: Why did Straube advocate Reger’s music so zealously and unflaggingly? The answer lies in precisely the stance toward history outlined above, a stance involving the interplay between nationalism and Protestantism, between the supremacy of Bach and the failure of Bach’s followers to live up to his exam­ ple, and between the philosophical tenets of an ‘other-centered’ spirituality (the religion of Bach and his alte Meister predecessors) and those of an ego­ centric rationalism (the religion of the nineteenth century). Because no correspondence from Straube to Reger survives, one must turn to Straube’s writings about the composer in order to discover the nature of Reger’s significance for him. Fortunately, this kind of written evidence, in the form of both private correspondence and published essays, is present for every period of Straube’s career, though it has never been collected and

206 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

systematically investigated. Straube’s views about Reger turn up a number of themes which are strikingly consistent over a fifty-year period and which center at least as much around Reger’s historical position as around the tech­ nicalities of his musical language. Interpretive questions play a decidedly secondary role. Here follow, then, representative excerpts from this corpus ordered chronologically. The accompanying commentary aims at identify­ ing certain ideas which not only repeatedly surface in Straube’s thinking, but which also illuminate the musical/cultural aesthetic discussed previously. The first citation comes from the end of Straube’s essay ‘Max Reger,’ pub­ lished in Die Gesellschaft in 1902: W ith th e so u n d in stin c t o f a g re a t ta le n t, R e g e r a tte m p ts, in th e c o n te x t o f an e x p re ssly G e rm a n art, to ta k e u p tra d itio n w h e re B ach la id it d o w n . U n c o n c e rn e d a b o u t tra n sito ry su c c e ss, R e g e r w o rk s in th e sp irit o f th is g re a t m a n . H e d e v e lo p s h is in h e rita n c e fu rth er, e x p a n d s it, n o t fo rm a listic a lly [im F o rm a le n ], b u t ra th e r s p iritu a lly [im G e istig e n ]! H e p u rsu e s n e ith e r m u sic h isto ry n o r re so u n d in g p h i­ lolo g y ! T h e m o d e m sp irit, to o , w ith its infinite v a ria b ility o f fe e lin g , sp e a k s fro m R e g e r’s w o rk s. R e g e r a p p e a rs to b e o n e o f th o se ra re artistic fig u re s w h o c a rrie s cu ltu ra l e le m e n ts fro m p a st tim e s u n c o n sc io u sly w ith in h im s e lf a n d , u n d e r th e in flu en ce o f c o n te m p o ra ry q u e stio n s a n d v ie w p o in ts, re v iv e s th e m to a n e w life in a rtistic sh a p e .63

Here, Straube pronounced both the ideological connection with Bach and the ‘expressly German’ nature of Reger’s art. Reger himself had heavily pro­ moted both ideas by 1902. O f particular interest, though, are (1) Straube’s distinction between ‘formal’ and ‘spiritual’ solutions to an inherited tradi­ tion (for him, Brahms would fall into the former category) and (2) the impli­ cation that Reger was continuing a tradition—a ‘geistige Tradition’—that had lain dormant and neglected since Bach. For Straube, Reger’s importance depended on a natural, even unconscious inclination to embody all that was essential about artistry in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century terms, then transforming that essence in a contemporary framework without becoming epigonal. This belief not only depends greatly upon the multidimensional view of historical process to which Straube was inclined, but it also presup­ poses that a particular kind of ‘cultural element’ had in effect died with Bach, only to be reborn in Reger about a century and a half later. Straube became more quixotic in a 1903 review of the collections opp. 65, 67, and 69 for Die Musik. He spoke here specifically of the 52 Easy Chorale Preludes op. 67. H ere, th e m o st d iffic u lt fo rm s are e m p lo y e d so le ly as a m e a n s to e x p re ssio n , n o t a s an e n d in th e m se lv e s. N o t th e ‘c o m p o s e r’ [‘T o n se tz e r’], b u t ra th e r th e m o o d a rtist in R e g e r d e m a n d s a d m ira tio n . T h e p sy c h ic se n sitiv ity w h ic h is e v id e n c e d

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 207 in th is m u sic is o f c o u rse as o u t-o f-d a te as p o ssib le fo r o u r tim e s. A re m n a n t fro m th e p e rio d w h e n , a fte r th e h o rro rs o f th e T h irty Y ears W ar, o u r p e o p le lo st th e ab ility to lau g h , sp e a k s to u s in a la n g u a g e h e a v y w ith m e la n c h o ly ... S u c h a sp irit [G eist] c a n n o t see th e fu lfillm e n t o f e x iste n c e in th is life. A h e re a fte r fu ll o f b le sse d jo y , su c h as th a t p ro m ise d b y C h ris t’s C h u rc h , g iv e s to th e o p p re sse d o f th is w o rld a h e a v e n ly c o m p e n sa tio n ... W ith th is c o lle c tio n , R e g e r g iv e s th e G e rm a n o rg a n ist a c h o ra le v o lu m e su c h as h a s n o t b e e n c o m p o se d sin c e th e c e n ­ tu ry o f Jo h a n n P a c h e lb e l, sin c e th e d a y o f Jo h . S eb. B a c h . D e sp ite B ra h m s!— A ll d u e re sp e c t to th e ‘E le v e n C h o ra le P re lu d e s ’ [op. p o st. 122]— th e y a re n e v e rth e ­ less re lig io u s stu d ie s o f a se c u la r m in d . . . 64

These remarks, made precisely at the time Straube was preparing his Alte Meister des Orgelspiels, including pieces by Pachelbel and Bach, underscore Reger’s religious nature and contrast it to the ‘Weltkind’ Brahms.65 As in the previous essay, Straube pointed out here that Reger ought to be regarded as proceeding in spirit from the ‘old masters’ rather than from his imme­ diate predecessors. Perhaps the clearest demonstration of this conviction— and, because of its wide and long-lived circulation, the statement which impressed itself most upon the collective conscience of organists— is the dedication of Straube’s Alte Meister collection, in pointedly rhetorical lan­ guage, ‘to the young master Max Reger.’66 By the time Straube published his Choralvorspiele alter Meister in 1907 as ‘a preparatory course for similar works by Johann Sebastian Bach,’67 he included the following assessment of music history in the introductory remarks: [T his co llectio n ] w ill d e m o n stra te th a t all th e fo rm s o f th is g e n re la te r u se d b y B a c h w e re fo u n d a n d d e v e lo p e d a lre a d y d u rin g th e c o u rse o f th e se v e n te e n th c e n ­ tury, a n d th at, d e sp ite th is, th e w o rk o f th e p o w e rfu l g e n iu s [i.e. B a c h ] is u n iq u e in th e e n o rm o u s in te n sific a tio n an d d e e p e n in g o f th e sp iritu a l [seelisch ] c o n te n t. H is d e v e lo p m e n t re m a in s in e x p lic a b le a n d p u z z lin g , d e sp ite all h isto ric a l in sig h t. N o n e o f th e p re d e c e sso rs su sta in s a c o m p a riso n w ith th e in c o m p a ra b le o n e. A sid e fro m su c h a su p e rh u m a n d e g re e o f e v a lu a tio n , th o u g h , th e G e rm a n o rg a n a rt o f th e se v e n te e n th c e n tu ry is ju stifia b ly d istin g u ish e d in its to ta lity as a c la ssic a l p e rio d fo r c h o ra le -b a se d w o rk s. B y c o n tra st, th o se c h o ra le w o rk s c o m p o se d a fte r J. S. B a c h b e lo n g to th e lo w p e rio d o f G e rm a n a rtistic c u ltu re . T h e six c o m p o si­ tio n s in th is c o lle c tio n w h ic h are n u m b e re d in th e p e rio d a fte r 1750 te stify to th is as w ell. O n ly at th e tu rn o f th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry d id M a x R e g e r, in h is c h o ra le w o rk s, p ro d u c e m o n u m e n ts o f G e rm a n m u sic w h ic h are w o rth y o f th e c re a tio n s o f p a st e p o c h s a n d w h ic h m a y b e c h o se n , lik e th o se o f th e p a st, to tra n sc e n d tim e . [TO U n fo rtu n ately , G e rm a n o rg a n ists h a v e sh o w n a p a rtic u la r p re fe re n c e fo r th e w o rk s fro m th e p e rio d o f d e c lin e . . . 68

208 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Figure 4.4

Karl Straube: Alte M eister des Orgelspiels , 1904 Original title page, with dedication ‘to the young master Max Reger’

The 1907 Preface constitutes Straube’s version of the principle Reger had formulated for Joseph Renner already in 1900: Deutschtum = ‘“bachiseli,” d.h. aus klassischem Geist geboren.’69 For Straube, a history of the German chorale-based organ repertory effectively ended with Bach and recommenced with Reger. These views are consistent, furthermore, both with Straube’s attention to seventeenth- and eighteenth-century German composers in his repertory (certainly new for the Conservatory’s curriculum) and with his pro­ nounced interest in the chorale-based fantasies and preludes of Reger. The following three citations are perhaps best considered together, since they illustrate a tendency in Straube’s thinking from 1916 onwards to con­ ceptualize Reger not merely as a spiritual nature, but also as an artist in life-

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 209

long conflict with his worldly environment because of that nature. Here is Straube to Wilibald Gurlitt on 19 July 1916, just after Reger’s death: F o r th is is re a lly th e h a llm a rk o f R e g e r’s p e rso n a lity a n d art: h e a lw a y s fo u n d tru e w o rth lo cated in tra n sc e n d e n ta l, sp iritu a l th in g s. T h e g re a t v a lu e s o f h is life w e re in tim a te ly co n n e c te d to re lig io u s v a lu e s. B e c a u se th is w a s so , I b e lie v e R e g e r ’s art w ill b e aliv e w h e n m u c h o f th a t w h ic h to d a y is a d m ire d a n d v a lu e d h a s lo n g sin ce re tre a ted in to ob scu rity . O n ly th a t a rt w h ic h is a n c h o re d in e te rn a l v a lu e s carries w ith in its e lf th e g u a ra n te e o f p e rm a n e n c e .70

to Erwin Zillinger on 5 January 1917: M ax R e g e r ... su ffe re d u n d e r th e in flu en ce o f an e n v iro n m e n t th a t w a s fo re ig n to h im . T h e re fo re h e w re stle s w ith p ro b le m s b u t c o m e s to n o c o n c lu sio n s; h e n c e th e p ro b le m a tic ele m e n t in an artistic n a tu re th a t w a s n e v e rth e le ss so fe rtile . O n ly in th e last w o rk s, w ith th e ir m e la n c h o ly re n u n c ia tio n , d o e s R e g e r c o m e to a c e rta in re sig n e d en d w ith th is w o rld .71

and in his 1924 Adorno-like essay ‘Max Reger’ for the Max RegerGesellschaft, in which the composer’s mindset (or what Straube proposed as the composer’s mindset) became a positive example against the apparent background of a socially distressed Weimar Republic: A t all tim es, in all h is m u sic , th e re so u n d in g lo n g in g o f a n in n er, w istfu l so u l re n o u n c in g th e secu lar, a so u l w h ic h co u ld lead o n ly a fig h tin g e x iste n c e w ith th e th in g s o f th is w o rld . A d eep m elan ch o ly , b o m fro m th e c o n flic t b e tw e e n p e rso n a l sen sib ilities an d th e re a litie s o f th e e a rth ly p a th , fills th e m u sic o f M a x R e g e r an d im b u es it w ith p a in ... T h e p o ssib ilitie s o f h is life, th e w ish in g a n d w illin g o f h is soul an d th e c irc u m sta n c es o f th e su rro u n d in g w o rld a lw a y s re m a in e d d is ­ so n an t. H e c o u ld n e v e r re a liz e a p e rfe c tio n o f h is life ’s w ill in h a rm o n io u s fo rm , ffl] R e g e r’s in n e r e x p e rie n c e fo u n d p e a c e o n ly w h e n it tu rn e d to th e se n se -fille d w o rld o f m eta p h y sic a l su b m ersio n . In a d e e p sen se, h e w a s o f a th o ro u g h ly re li­ g io u s n atu re, d e v o te d to an a lm o st c h ild lik e faith , a n d a c c o rd in g ly v e ry su re o f h im self. T h is esse n tia l c h a ra c teristic sto o d in th e sta rk e st c o n tra d ic tio n to a tim e w h ic h , in th e o b je c tiv e s o f its w ill, w a s th o ro u g h ly irre lig io u s in a ttitu d e ... ffl] T h e y o u th o f o u r d ay c a n fin d in th e p a in s a n d b a ttle s o f th is p a ssio n a te sp irit th e m o v in g e x p re ssio n o f th e ir o w n d istre ss. B u t in th is a b o v e all else , R e g e r re m a in s a sh in in g e x a m p le in th a t h e b e lie v e d an d h o p e d to fin d in h u m b le su b ­ m issiv e n e ss, in a m e ta p h y sic a l, m y stic v isio n th e o n ly e sc a p e fro m th e c h a o s o f th e tro u b le d p ath s o f d estin y .72

It should be clear at this point that Reger’s importance for Straube lay in the way Reger in some sense brought all that was valid about the distant past

210 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

into the present. Straube was able to explain the composer’s tempestuous personality by claiming that the ‘cultural elements from the past’ inherent in Reger stood in inevitable conflict with contemporary societal and aesthetic ideals. Accordingly, Reger’s provincial Catholic upbringing was an essen­ tial element in Straube’s thinking, too, since he believed that a confessionally bound, positive attitude toward tradition had continued to distinguish the educational systems of small-town Germany long after the major cultural centers had been infected with the secularizing, egocentric mindset of the Enlightenment. Hence resulted Reger’s immense stature in Straube’s mind not only or even primarily as a composer, but as a cultural figure who in essence issued from a former era, the world view of which was itself more valid. The fact, too, that values rooted in the nineteenth century had led his­ torically to the overwhelming sociopolitical disasters of 1914-1945 could have served only to underscore Reger’s significance as the new century pro­ gressed: the ‘troubled paths of destiny’ are best navigated with a spiritual mindset modeled on the piety of distant times. All of this was, for Straube, imbedded in Reger’s music. In 1941, Straube composed what would become his last essay about Reger for the twenty-fifth anniversary of the composer’s death. Max Reger: Werden und Vollendung comprises just over eleven pages of prose, published in pam­ phlet form ‘im Aufträge des Insel-Verlags in 100 Exemplaren.’73 As in the 1924 Reger-Gesellschaft article excerpted above, Straube in 1941 concen­ trated his efforts on justifying Reger’s significance by proposing his essential dissimilarity to the dominant cultural climate. He accomplished this by set­ ting up an antithesis with Strauss and Pfitzner (Mahler is notably absent from the discussion), the two composers Straube believed to be worthy competi­ tors of Reger ‘about a generation ago’74 and to whom he devoted four pages, fully a third of the essay. Once again, Straube pointed out, now in rather recondite language, that th e a b u n d a n c e o f in te lle c tu a l [g eistig ] a n d so cial tre n d s in th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry led , a s a re s u lt o f u n c h e c k e d o b je c tiv e s in th e d iv e rsity o f e n d e a v o rs to w a rd a n e w fo rm o f life, to a d isin te g ra tio n , o f n e c e ssity a lso in th e a rtistic a re n a , o f w h a t u p to th a t tim e h a d b e e n e sse n tia lly a u n ifo rm w o rld o f th o u g h t a n d w ill.75

Straube believed Strauss to be the composer who most convincingly gave musical expression to contemporary intellectual life, to the ‘splintering of German essence.’76 Pfitzner, on the other hand, ought to be admired for ‘the German nature of his art, the breadth of his intellectual [geistig] education, [and] the incorruptibility of his judgment.’77 Reger’s nature, Straube main­ tained, issued from thoroughly different circumstances. He then dissected in some detail Reger’s upbringing in the Bavarian Oberpfalz:

Reger*s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 211 B esid e s th e sc h o la rly su b je c ts, a re sp e c ta b le so u n d n e ss in life, e x tre m e re sp o n ­ sib ility a n d c o n sc ie n tio u sn e ss in e v e ry u n d e rta k in g , g o o d w ill a n d p h ila n th ro p y to w a rd h is fello w m a n , a n a tte n d in g lo v e fo r p a re n ts an d , fin ally , re v e re n c e to w a rd th e C h u rc h a n d o b e d ie n c e to w a rd th e state. T h e se a re th e m o ra l d e m a n d s o f a p ro p e r o rder, w h ic h u p to th e tu rn o f th e c e n tu ry g a v e c o n te n t a n d fo rm to life in m a n y G erm a n sm a ll to w n s. T h e p ro b le m s o f m o d e m life, p ro c e e d in g fro m th e G re a t R e v o lu tio n in F ra n c e a n d e n h a n c e d b y th e in d u stria l a n d c a p ita list re v o lu ­ tio n s o f th e n in e te e n th cen tu ry , im p e rio u sly d e m a n d in g n e w fo rm s o f p u b lic a n d p o litic a l life, h a d n o t y e t to u c h e d th e se w itn e sse s o f a still a n d p e a c e fu l p a st in th e su rg in g fo rw a rd m o tio n o f tim e . [%\ O n e c a n n o t d o u b t th e g re a t in flu e n c e o f th is in h e rite d w a y o f life u p o n M a x R eg er.78

Straube went on to explain Reger’s ‘essence, removed from secular life’79 in much the same terms as he had in 1924. Although Reger’s relationship to a more distant past clearly remained important to Straube, it is probably not insignificant that the names of Johann Sebastian Bach and the collective alte Meister are missing from both the 1924 and the 1941 essays.80 Straube’s earlier published remarks tend to underscore Reger’s connection to Bach and the alte Meister, whereas his later writings only intimate it. It seems likely that Straube’s move away from rhetoric around Bach had to do with the precarious position of Reger’s music in an Orgelbewegung ideology which itself never achieved great stability during the decades following the com­ poser’s death. In any case, Straube knew that any ideological connection with Bach could be carried too far. In his later writings, he tended less toward a portrait of Reger as a second Bach and more toward one of a composer fraught with contradictions arising from Reger’s unique stance toward tradi­ tion (both older as well as more recent, ‘Baroque’ as well as ‘Romantic’) and innovation. This attitude manifested itself most starkly in a 1944 letter to Friedrich Högner: T h e re la tio n sh ip o f M a x R e g e r to th e g re a t T h o m a sk a n to r is n o t as c lo se as o n e te n d s to a ssu m e. R e g e r c o m e s fro m late B e e th o v e n , th e R o m a n tic s, a n d J o h a n n e s B rah m s. O f B a c h , h e w a s fa m ilia r w ith o n ly The Well-Tempered Clavier an d th e o rg an w o rk s w h ic h h is first p u b lish e r A u g e n e r g a v e to h im in th e e d itio n o f th e E n g lish m a n W. T. B est. H e k n e w n o th in g o f th e su ite s a n d th e ‘B ra n d e n ­ b u rg s .’ I w a s th e o n e w h o b ro u g h t a b o u t h is k n o w le d g e o f th e se w o rk s in th a t I c a u se d C . F. P e te rs to e n tru st h im w ith c re a tin g fo u r-h a n d e d p ia n o a rra n g e ­ m e n ts [K lav iera u sz ü g en ] o f th em . P h ilip p W o lfru m in tro d u c e d h im to th e k e y ­ b o a rd co n c e rti. L ik e H a n s v o n B ülow , th e y o u n g e r m a ste r k n e w v e ry little o f th e can ta ta s, a n d h e d id n o t e v e n o w n th e sc o re s to th e Matthew Passion a n d th e High

Mass*'

212 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

As convincing as this assessment is—Reger is of course enormously indebted to late Beethoven—it also must be true that Straube’s own rhetoric from earlier decades had been largely responsible for one’s ‘tending to assume’ the Reger-Bach relationship in the first place.82 Obviously, Straube’s atti­ tudes are not completely consistent over time, even if his late move away from a Bach-based Reger amounts merely to a shift in emphasis (and not the replacement of one view with another) in context of an admittedly very complex picture of the composer. Straube’s late thinking was unquestionably informed by what might be termed a melancholy ambivalence toward his own past. His ideas about Reger (Reger-Bach vs. Reger-Beethoven) parallel, for example, his inconsistent attitudes about organ building: by the 1940s, the organs of Sauer meant for him simultaneously nothing (‘[TJoday, the sound of a Sauer organ means nothing to me any more.’83) and everything (‘But also the Willibrordi Church, its beautiful Sauer organ, even nearly the whole city of Wesel are no more.’84). Taken as a whole, Straube’s thinking over a period of about fifty years presents, if nothing else, a fairly clear picture of Reger’s overwhelming and multidimensional significance for him on musical, philosophical, theologi­ cal, and historical levels. In Straube’s mind, Reger’s organ music assumed with good reason a pivotal place in a Leipzig canon which, after Straube’s arrival there, began to turn from a ‘Bach - Mendelssohn - Rheinberger’ sequence to a new repertory, roughly expressed ‘Buxtehude/alte Meister Bach - Liszt - Reger - (and later) David. It almost goes without saying that certain readily observable contradictions in Straube’s thinking, appearing even within a single period of his career, render difficult or impossible a cogent analysis of his attitudes. Straube’s claim in 1924 that Reger tended ‘toward a world of metaphysical submersion’ does not easily reconcile with his view, expressed both early and late in life, of Reger as a rough-hewn, bad-mannered anti-intellectual at whom Straube’s Prussian nature appar­ ently took offense.85 Even more striking is the dissonance between Straube’s public emphasis on the positive significance of Reger’s provincial upbring­ ing in Max Reger: Werden und Vollendung and his private statement to Bernhard Schwarz, made only two years later in 1943, that Reger was barred ‘entrance into the circle of the greatest musicians’ on account of ‘breeding and inherited human weaknesses.’86 Furthermore and perhaps most impor­ tant, Straube’s way of thinking about the distant past—a way of thinking essential to his view of Reger—is informed by precisely the kind of Roman­ ticism on the basis of which he forms a less-than-positive view of the nine­ teenth century. This is so despite Straube’s distinction between ‘formalistic’ (Brahms) and ‘spiritual’ (Reger) approaches to the past, and he also began to speak of his own past with the Romantic (and thoroughly understandable) Sehnen from which he distanced himself in other ways. For Straube, it appar­ ently was possible to lament the aesthetic and intellectual consequences of

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 213

German ‘enlightened’ Romanticism while at the same time embracing its historicizing tendencies. And in terms of the practical consequences for a reception history of organ music at the Leipzig Conservatory, Reger had every reason to be pleased, whether or not he shared Straube’s complex phi­ losophy.

Teaching and perform ance within S traube’s Leipzig curriculum Appendices 1 and 2, based on the extant archival materials at the presentday Leipzig Hochschule, offer a picture of Reger’s music in performance at Conservatory-sponsored concerts from 1900 to 1950. The first documented instance of an organ performance by a student from Straube’s studio took place at an examination recital on 24 February 1908, when the Hungarian Karl Rezik87 performed Reger’s Fantasy and Fugue on BACH op. 46. From 1908 onwards, it appears that Reger’s organ music assumed a more or less regular place on Conservatory programs, the most frequently appearing works being the Fantasy and Fugue on BACH op. 46, the two sonatas opp. 33 and 60, certain smaller pieces from the collection op. 59, and the fanatasies on Protestant chorales opp. 27, 40/1, 52/2, and 52/3. The large, difficult works opp. 57, 73, 127, and 135b appear, perhaps understandably, with the greatest infrequency, and none of those performances issued from Straube’s own class.88 At this juncture, it is probably wise to offer a twofold word of caution for those who wish to interpret the information in Appendices 1 and 2 toward a reception history either of Reger or of any other composer whose organ music appeared on Conservatory programs. In the first place, it is important to bear in mind that the Leipzig Hochschule’s performance records for the first half of the twentieth century are most certainly incomplete, particularly for the tumultuous years 1914-1918 and 1939-1950. Second, the nature of the archival evidence (i.e. program sheets) necessarily limits significantly the kind of information it offers: the performed repertory represents merely a subset of the studied repertory, and it hence proves difficult or impossible to arrive at any conclusive appraisal of Reger’s (or any other composer’s) prominence in Straube’s lessons. Perhaps the most obvious example of this latter point is the complete absence of the Symphonic Fantasy and Fugue op. 57 from student programs at Leipzig contrasted with Heinz Wun­ derlich’s well-known essay ‘Karl Straubes Vortragsbezeichnungen in der Symphonischen Phantasie und Fuge op. 57,’ in which Wunderlich states that he studied op. 57 with Straube in 1940 because of ‘a special wish of my teacher.’89 Three further cases illustrate well both the disparity between performance and study and how one might approach a more balanced picture based

214 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition on supplementary evidence. (1) In a letter of 25 February 1944 to Hans Klotz, Straube recalled having studied Reger’s op. 73 ‘several years ago with one of my pupils, Goering from Eisleben.’90 There is no reason to believe that Straube’s memory was faulty or that he was being deliberately decep­ tive, even though there are no records of Goering having performed op. 73 (indeed, Straube did not claim he had done so). Furthermore, ‘Goering’ does not appear in the comprehensive list of Straube’s Conservatory pupils com­ piled in November 1995.” Did Straube maintain a circle of private pupils after he joined the Conservatory faculty in 1907? (2) Appendices 1 and 2 indicate only one performance of Reger by an organ student in 1928: the Ramin pupil Gerhard Bochmann played the First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 on a student recital on 25 May of that year. One might interpret the apparent infrequency of Reger’s organ works in student performances in the 1920s as a reaction against ‘Romantic’ organ music, a sentiment common to Wilibald Gurlitt’s brand of organ reform with which Straube had clear connections. However, in 1927 Straube’s Church Music Institute published its examination requirements for all areas of study in Dresden’s Zeitschrift ftir Kirchenmusiker—Organ des Landesvereins der Kirchenmusiker Sachsens E. V92 The document as a whole is very enlight­ ening as to the stringent requirements imposed on an accomplished church musician in Saxony in the 1920s, but for the present purpose lists the reper­ tory requirements for ‘virtuoso organ performance for secondary students,’ J. S. B ach , Orgelbüchlein: ‘W ir C h riste n le u t’ [B W V 6 1 2 ]. R eg er: Chorale pre­ lude: ‘Ein feste Burg op. 6 7 /6 ? , op. 7 9b/2?] J. S. B ach : Passacaglia in C minor [B W V 582]. R e g e r: Passacaglia in F minor op. 63 [no. 7]. A c c o m p a n im e n t o f a c h o ra le ([K arl] H o y er: Weihnachtsgesang). A c c o m p a n im e n t o f a n a ria b y J. S. B a c h fro m th e Christmas Oratorio [B W V 2 4 8 ] ‘S c h la fe , m e in J e s u .’ O th e r se c ­ o n d a rie s re c e iv e s im ila r a ssig n m e n ts. ffl] S ig h t re a d in g o f a so n g a c c o m p a n im e n t: J. S. B a c h ,

Schemelli’s Songbook ‘O ,

Je su le in s ü ß ’ [B W V 4 9 3 ].93

‘virtuoso organ performance for majors,’ C h o ra le s fro m B a c h ’s

Orgelbüchlein.

1. H e rr G o tt, n u n sc h le u ß d e n H im m e l a u f

[B W V 6 1 7 ]. 2. V om H im m e l k am d e r E n g el S c h a r [B W V 6 0 7 ]. 3. D a s a lte Ja h r v e rg a n g e n ist [B W V 6 1 4 ]. 4. D u rc h A d a m s F all ist g a n z v e rd e rb t [B W V 6 3 7 ]. ffl]

Prelude and Fugue in G minor. 2. J. S. B ach , Fantasy and Fugue in G minor [B W V 542]. 3. B ru h n s, Prelude and Fugue in E minor. 4. L ü b eck , Fugue in E minor. 5. J. S. B a c h , Prelude and Fugue in B minor [B W V 544] (n o s. 3-5 b y c h o ic e o f th e ju ry ), [f] M o d e m m a s­ te rs a c c o rd in g to ch o ice: R eg er, Sonata in D minor op. 60. [11] S ig h t re a d in g : [H ein rich ] R e im a n n , Prelude and Fugue in D minor op. 31. ffl] L e a rn e d o u tsid e o f lesso n s: 1. V in cen t L ü b e c k , Prelude and Fugue in C minor. 2. [N iels O tto] O ld m a ste rs a c c o rd in g to ch o ice: 1. B u x te h u d e ,

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 215 R a ste d [recte: R a a ste d ],

Sonata No. 1 in C minor [O p.

10]. O th e r m a jo rs re c e iv e

s im ila r a ssig n m e n ts.94

and the topics for ‘analysis’: B u x te h u d e , P re lu d e s,

Fugue in G minor[1].

D e v e lo p m e n t [E n tw ic k e ln ] o f th e

c o n c e p t ‘co m m u n ity o f su b sta n c e ’ [S u b sta n z g e m e in sc h a ft] fro m th e o rg a n ic .

Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Halleluja, Gott zu loben’b y

R eg er, o p . 5 2 /3 . E x p la n a ­

tio n [F eststellen ] o f th e v a ria tio n p rin c ip le . [S ig frid ] K a rg -E le rt,

zone, Toccata, and Fugue op.

Fantasy, Can­

8 5 /2 .95

The repertory core ‘alte Meister - Bach - Reger’ is very clear here, even if this is not reflected in extant performance records from the period in the Hochschule’s archive. The requirements for secondaries seem to have been constructed in order to emphasize parallel treatment of form and technique in Bach and Reger (chorale prelude and passacaglia). (3) Elsewhere, I have examined detailed performance markings in a number of Reger scores from the estate of George Otto Lillich, whose study with Straube spanned only the short time from the ‘beginning of winter semester 1929/30 through [the] end of summer semester 1930 (mid-June).’96 Lillich’s name does not appear in the extant performance records given in Appendices 1 and 2, but his rather thorough study of five Reger works (opp. 52/2, 52/3, 46, 63/5+6, and 60) with Straube is demonstrable, either from Straube’s own markings in the scores or from registration indications which match exactly the specification of the Conservatory’s organ as it then existed. The kind of study undertaken in that essay is desirable with respect both to other repertories and to other pupils of Straube. Such study will require, of course, the further unearthing of scores which can be shown to have been used in Straube’s lessons. The potential for useful information is enormous, however, given the number of Straube’s students through 1948 and the rel­ evancy of the evidence both to issues of performance style and to reception history. Statements and recollections of Straube’s pupils, too, assist in assembling a portrait of the Straube studio and Reger’s position in it. Such statements contain a good deal of information potentially pertinent not only to issues surrounding Reger’s music, but also to Straube’s pedagogical techniques in general. As with the archival evidence associated with the Leipzig Conserva­ tory, so too there are certain features of available student recollections which require caution in their evaluation. Despite what are probably, more often than not, the best intentions with regard to objectivity, Straube’s students often slip into an anecdotal or merely laudatory tone which tends to skirt practical issues. Furthermore, the bulk of such statements belong to students from later in Straube’s career (the late 1920s through the 1940s) and therefore

216 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition cannot yield any kind of comprehensive overview of Straube as teacher. Still, student recollections constitute a significant body of evidence which ought not be ignored. Here follow some of the more useful statements which address the Leipzig repertory and Reger’s position in it. Certain witnesses have claimed that all organ students at Leipzig were required to study a pre­ determined series of works in a standardized order, while others have stated that one was free to learn what one wished. It seems unlikely that there existed the kind of absolute uniformity claimed by some, especially over a period of some forty years. There do exist certain readily observable com­ monalities among the more detailed accounts below, though, and from this it appears that Straube, over the course of his career, probably developed a methodical structure loose enough to fit individual circumstances. The examples follow in roughly chronological order the study period of their authors. In o rd e r to e n d o w u s stu d e n ts n o t o n ly w ith te c h n ic a l m astery , b u t a lso w ith an in te lle c tu a l p e n e tra tio n [zu r g e istig e n D u rc h d rin g u n g ] a n d a w e ll-fo rm e d p re s e n ­ ta tio n o f th e o rg a n w o rk s, S tra u b e m a d e u se o f h is fa m o u s ‘c u rric u lu m ,’ th ro u g h w h ic h ea c h stu d e n t h a d to w o rk co m p letely . H e b e g a n w ith th e

Orgelbüchlein

(P e te rs v o lu m e V ) in a rig id order. ‘W h o e v e r m a ste rs th is c a n a c tu a lly p la y e v e ry ­ th in g ,’ h e u se d to say. ‘It c o n ta in s th e en tire o rg an te c h n iq u e in n u c e .’ A d m itte d ly , h e re q u ire d e v e ry p ie c e w ith o u t m ista k e s, an d u su a lly an e n tire y e a r w a s d e d i­

Orgelbüchlein. T h e IV. [P eters] v o lu m e fo llo w e d w ith th e Fugue [B W V 5 7 9 ], Canzone [B W V 588 ], G -m in o r Fugue [B W V 5 7 8 ], L eg ren zi Fugue in C minor [B W V 574 ], D -m in o r Toccata [B W V 5 6 5 ], G -m a jo r Fantasy [B W V 57 2 ]. F u rth er, fro m v o lu m e III th e V io lin Fugue in D minor [Gei­ genfuge, certa in ly B W V 539 ], Prelude and Fugue in G minor [B W V 5 3 5 ], Fan­ tasy and Fugue in C minor [B W V 537 ], D o ria n Toccata and Fugue [B W V 5 3 8 ], F -m a jo r Toccata and Double Fugue [B W V 540], A fte rw a rd s fro m v o lu m e II, c a te d e x c lu siv e ly to th e

C o relli

C m a jo r [B W V 5 4 5 ? 5 4 7 ?], F m in o r, A m in o r, B m in o r [B W V 5 3 4 , 5 4 3 , an d 544 re sp e c tiv e ly ], as w ell as E -flat m a jo r [B W V 552] fro m v o lu m e III. F in a lly c am e th e

Passacaglia

[B W V 582] a n d th e

trio sonatas

[B W V 5 2 5 -5 3 0 ]. T h is

w e ll-th o u g h t-o u t se q u e n c e o f th e B a c h w o rk s, fro m th e sm a lle st th ro u g h th e m e d iu m -siz e d to th e larg e, led to a su p e rio r se c u rity in te c h n ic a l as w e ll as in in te lle c tu a l-artistic [im G e istig -K ü n stle risc h e n ] m a tte rs. N o o n e w a s e x c u se d fro m a p iece; n o th in g c o u ld b e o m itte d ... [10 A fte r B ach , h e h a d u s stu d y B u x te ­ hu d e, th e n F ra n z L isz t {BACHFantasy a n d th e Variations on Weinen, Klagen’) an d fin ally R eger.97 — E rw in Z illin g e r (1 9 1 3 -1 9 1 5 , In sc rip tio n no. 11 7 9 8 ) S trau b e d o es n o t fo llo w a m e th o d in th e n o rm a l sen se. R ath er, h e c o n sid e rs w ith a fine p e rsp ic a c ity th e in d iv id u a lity o f th e p a rtic u la r p u p il a n d c o n stru c ts h is w a y o f te a c h in g sp e c ia lly a c c o rd in g to e a c h c a se .98 — G ü n th e r R a m in (1 9 1 4 -1 9 1 6 , In sc rip tio n no. 11 9 5 7 )

Reger*s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 217 In th e d o m e stic re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n S tra u b e a n d p u p il p re v a ile d (c o rre sp o n d ­ in g to tra d itio n a l P ru ssia n n o rm s) an iro n h ie ra rc h y , th e o rd e r o f w h ic h m ig h t b e m o d ified h e re a n d th e re , b u t w h ic h u su a lly fo llo w e d th e sc h e m e o f th e o rg a n re p e rto ry to b e stu d ied : ‘T h e R e im a n n ’ as p re lim in a ry study, th e n B a c h ‘v o lu m e V ’ (P e te rs), ‘v o lu m e I V ’ a n d ‘v o lu m e IIP w ith th e p ie c e s o f m o d e ra te d ifficu lty . In th is p h a se b e g a n th e in d iv id u a l v a ria n ts w ith w o rk s o f so -c a lle d ‘o ld m a s te rs ,’ p o ssib ly w ith a th ru st in to m o re d a rin g a re a s, e.g . C é sa r F ra n c k ,

minor, R e g e r - Kyrie/Gloria/Benedictus [op.

Chorale in A

5 9 /7 -9 ] a n d sim ila r th in g s. T h e n fo l­

lo w e d o n th e lev el o f n o t-q u ite -m a tu re m a ste ry

{ofthe pupil, to

b e su re ): ‘v o lu m e

I I ’ (th is to o in a n u n w ritte n in n e r o rd e r a n d se q u e n c e ) a n d fin a lly ‘b ig R e g e r,’ fro m e.g.

Morgenstern

[op. 4 0 /1 ] to

BACH

[op. 4 6 ], th e D -m in o r

Sonata

[op.

6 0], a n d sim ila r w o rk s. [If] O d d ly e n o u g h , th e re la tio n o f S tra u b e ’s stu d e n ts [d e r S trau b ia n e r] lite ra lly c o rre sp o n d e d to th is o b je c tiv e se q u e n c e o f th e m u sic a l re p ­ e rto ry a n d w a s a c c e p te d b y th e n e w c o m e r stu d e n ts in a w a y w h ic h to d ay , a fte r tw o re v o lu tio n s a n d th e S e c o n d W o rld W ar, is n o t e v e n b e lie v a b le in fa iry ta le fo rm . O n e o n ly b ru sh e s o n e x a g g e ra te d g ro te sq u e n e ss b y sa y in g : n e v e r w o u ld a V olum e T w o (i.e. th e c o rre sp o n d in g y o u n g c h a p ) c o n d e sc e n d so fa r as to p a y a tte n tio n to a y o u n g la d y fro m v o lu m e V, to say n o th in g o f d a n c in g w ith h e r o n o c c a sio n o r e v e n fa llin g in lo v e w ith her. I f a n ‘O ld M a s te r ’ h a d , say, in v ite d a ‘R e g e r’ fo r b eer, it w o u ld h a v e sp re a d fo r w e e k s th ro u g h th e C h ro n iq u e sc a n d a le u se o f th e C h u rc h M u sic In stitu te . A n d as fa r a s I c a n re m e m b e r, su c h e x c e sse s n e v e r o c c u rre d , e ith e r." — Jo h a n n e s P ie rsig (1 9 2 6 -1 9 3 2 , In sc rip tio n n o . 15 2 0 7 ) ‘L is te n ,’ [the stu d e n ts] sa id to m e , ‘h e a lw a y s m a k e s e v e ry o n e w h o c o m e s to h im fro m a d iffe re n t in stitu tio n sta rt o v e r fro m sc ra tc h .’ T h a t w a s q u ite d isc o u ra g in g . T h e y to ld m e as w e ll (w h ic h w a s tru e ) th a t h e w a s v e ry stric t fo r th e first tw o y e a rs w ith p u p ils w h o c a m e to h im as b e g in n e rs, p a rtic u la rly re g a rd in g te c h n iq u e , an d th a t h e h im s e lf d e te rm in e d w h ic h p ie c e s th e y w e re to p la y d u rin g th is p e rio d , in a fa irly rig id o rd er, th e sa m e p ie c e s fo r e v e ry p u p il. T h e g re a t m o m e n t th e n ca m e w h e n h e— a ro u n d th e e n d o f th e se c o n d y ear, so m e tim e s ea rlie r, so m e tim e s later,— sa id to th e p u p il: ‘W h a t d o y o u w a n t to stu d y n o w ? ’ th e re b y g iv in g h im free ch o ic e . T h is w a s c o n sid e re d a k in d o f ‘jo u rn e y m a n ’s e x a m ,’ a p ro m o tio n fro m p u p il to jo u rn e y m a n . O n ly th e n d id o n e re a lly b e lo n g to th e ‘in n e r c irc le .’ [K] W ith th e se th in g s o n m y h e a rt I p la y e d fo r S tra u b e ; it w a s B a c h ’s F -m a jo r

cata [B W V

Toc­

5 4 0 ]. A ll h is stu d e n ts sto o d c ritic a lly a ro u n d th e c o n so le . A ll w a n te d

to b e w itn e sse s. W h e n I fin ish ed , h e sa id only, ‘Y ou h a v e h a d a g o o d teach er. W ith w h ic h p ie c e d o y o u w a n t to b e g in w ith m e ? ’100 — H e in ric h F le is c h e r (1 9 3 4 -1 9 3 5 , In sc rip tio n n o . 16 8 5 7 ) T h e v e ry first le sso n w ith h im w a s c o m p le te ly u n re m a rk a b le . I h a d to tra in m y s e lf to p la y th re e lin e s o f a fu g u e (C o re lli F u g u e [B W V 5 7 9 ]) o v e r a p a g e tu rn w ith a b o u t te n in stru c tio n s (re g istra tio n c h a n g e s w ith h a n d s a n d fe e t, p a g e tu rn ,

218 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition p la y in g w ith o n e h a n d o n tw o m a n u a ls sim u ltan eo u sly , etc.). A fte r I a c c o m ­ p lish e d th is, I k n e w th e o rg a n as w ell as m y h a n d s an d fe e t (I h a d b e e n a b le to p la y th e o rg an b e fo re th is, to o !), a n d I h a d te ste d m y c o o rd in a tio n fa c u ltie s to th e ir lim its. N e x t a se rie s o f ch o ra le s fro m th e

Orgelbüchlein,

th e n p re lu d e s a n d

fu g u e s fro m th e se c o n d a n d th ird P e te rs v o lu m e s. A ll th is w ith rig id ly fix ed d e a d ­ lines: o n e w as n o t a llo w e d to w o rk lo n g e r th a n 14 d ay s o n o n e o f th e larg e B a c h p ie c e s. In a sin g le in sta n c e , h e a llo w e d m e o n e w e e k m o re. A fte r a b o u t th re e larg e B a c h w o rk s cam e R e g e r’s

Morgenstern

[op. 4 0 /1 ] a n d fu rth e r b ig R e g e r w o rk s.

A th ird larg e item c o n siste d o f w o rk s b y J[o h a n n ]. N [e p o m u k ]. D a v id , fre sh ly c o m p o se d at th e tim e: th e e a rly F -m in o r

Toccata,

th e

Chaconne

[in A m in o r],

a n d sev eral sm a lle r w o rk s. S tra u b e a n d D a v id h a d a c lo se p e rso n a l, a b o v e all p h ilo so p h ic a l, re la tio n sh ip , an d , ju s t as S tra u b e h a d e a rlie r m a d e R e g e r p o p u la r th ro u g h h is o rg a n p la y in g , n o w h e m a d e D a v id p o p u la r th ro u g h h is p u p ils .101 — A n d re a s W eb ersin k e (1 9 3 8 -1 9 3 9 , In sc rip tio n n o . 17 7 6 9 ) I n o lo n g e r re c a ll S tra u b e ’s c u rric u lu m precisely , b e c a u se I w a s still v e ry y o u n g th e n an d a llo w e d m u c h to esc a p e m y n o tice. O f c o u rse , th e le sso n s b e g a n w ith th e

Orgelbüchlein, th e n

fo llo w e d a fe w ‘o ld m a s te rs ,’ e.g. P a c h e lb e l, B u x te h u d e ,

L ü b e c k e t a l ... T h e R o m a n tic s a n d R e g e r c a m e later, a fte r th e p u p il h a d a b so lv e d a fe w larg e ‘B a c h s ’ (se c o n d a n d th ird [P eters] v o lu m e s). S o [R e g e r c am e] re a lly q u ite late, so th a t o n e ’s te c h n ic a l fo u n d a tio n h a d sta b iliz e d so m e w h a t. H e b e g a n w ith a few p ie c e s fro m op. 59 ( i f I re m e m b e r co rre c tly :

Benedictus

[op. 59/9]

etc.). B u t S trau b e a lso ta u g h t th e m u sic o f K u rt T h o m a s, K a rl H o y e r, a n d th e n J o h a n n N e p o m u k D av id . H e w as v e ry re c e p tiv e to m o d e m m u sic . H e h a d a lre a d y d e m o n stra te d th is, o f co u rse , in h is a d v o c a c y fo r M a x R e g e r.102 — W alter H e in z B e rn ste in (E x a m in a tio n y e a r 1941, In sc rip tio n n o . 17 5 3 9 )

Certain features of these and similar reports have quietly found their way into quasi-biographical writings about Straube by authors who had not been his students. Included in this category would be statements like that of Hans Böhm in 1970 (‘Bach and then Reger ... were the cornerstones of the organ­ ist’s curriculum.’103) and Eberhard Otto in 1963 (‘Here [at the Conservatory] he imposed a method as leader of the organ classes which he later ... could place on the foundation of what might be called a Studium generale ... at the “Con’s” Church Music Institute.’104). The discrepancies among descriptions of Straube’s curriculum clearly reflect individual experience or, in the case of biographical sketches by non­ pupils, elements of a simplified, stereotyped image which has matured over the course of the century. The recollections of Johannes Piersig (beneath a somewhat belabored cynicism)105 and Heinrich Fleischer must come close to the truth, though: a controlled course of study followed by more freedom on the student’s part. The central but secondary importance of Reger’s music here is obvious. Straube evidently did not allow his pupils to study Reger

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 219

until after they had absolved a fairly elaborate sequence of Bach’s works, thereby achieving the necessary technical foundation.106 The Bach sequence appears to have always (perhaps not with Ramin, Fleischer, or Webersinke?) commenced with the Orgelbüchlein (i.e. Peters volume V), moved through a series of free works in volumes IV, III, and II, perhaps culminating—at least according to Zillinger—with the Passacaglia and the sonatas of volume I. No account mentions inclusion of the larger chorale preludes, a remarkable omission given Straube’s ideological emphasis on the integrity of chorale interpretation in both the alte Meister and Reger. (Equally remarkable is the narration of Andreas Webersinke’s elaborate orchestration of B WV 579 for Straube, a description which, given Straube’s much-discussed renunciation of romanticizing tendencies in old music, seems more at home in 1908 than 1938.107) Apart from the possibility that Straube considered Reger’s op. 59 a good technical and stylistic introduction to the composer’s larger works (and not, say, the Six Trios op. 47, composed expressly for pedagogical purposes), there seems to have been no similarly standardized sequence for the Reger repertory. The works mentioned in the commentary above, though, constitute a general standard observed already in the repertory lists of Appendices 1 and 2: prominent in Straube’s mind was a relatively narrow corpus including the Fantasy and Fugue on BACH op. 46, the sonatas opp. 33 and 60, certain pieces from op. 59, and certain chorale fantasies.108 The evidence suggests, furthermore, that these pieces constituted a representative canon for Straube already by the century’s second decade. If, as Webersinke suggests above, Straube ‘made Reger popular through his organ playing,’ it must be just as pertinent to say that he accomplished this, in both pedagogy and perfor­ mance, via a rather selective sample of works.

The Leipzig Conservatory organ and the implications of its history Considering what has become by the end of the twentieth century an exten­ sive literature around Max Reger and Karl Straube, one might easily suppose that the knottiest issue in the relationship between composer and interpreter has to do with the disparity between Reger’s notation and Straube’s realiza­ tion of it. It is perhaps more to the point, though, to observe that the really significant difficulties arise not from questions of interpretation per se, but rather from the fact that the Reger-Straube relationship played itself out over a long period of unremitting chaos on sociopolitical, cultural, and aesthetic fronts. The majority of that period fell after the composer’s death, so that, as one proceeds through the issues in time, questions begin to arise less from a tangible, interactive relationship and more from an idealized Reger in Straube’s mind. The character of Straube’s thinking is at all times complex and multidimensional, and he therefore cannot escape a certain ambivalence

220 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

about issues (Romantik vs. Sachlichkeit and all its tributaries) which have in the past tended toward an unjustifiably simplistic treatment. There exists, on the one hand, a certain consistency in his philosophies which over the course of a half century’s activity led him to renounce neither Reger’s music nor the subjective element which informed it. On the other hand, though, it would be obviously misguided to suggest that the thinking behind Straube’s so-called ‘classical’ edition of op. 27 in 1938 is identical to that behind his Bearbeitung of pieces from op. 59 in 1912. It is less obviously misguided (but misguided nevertheless) to maintain their diametrical opposition. This study has sought to address issues of Reger, Straube, and the Bewe­ gungen of the early twentieth century in piecemeal fashion, and then only obliquely. This method (or more properly, lack of method) is reflective of the fact that the notion commonly termed Orgelbewegung—like Straube’s thought itself—does not constitute a unified ideology or movement except with respect to the thinking of certain outspoken individuals, all of whom carried on with Straube personal relationships of varying intensity.109 Since Straube’s ideas about organs and organ playing developed over such an extended period (broadly stated, from about 1885 to 1950, from the ideal of Walcker/Sauer to that of Silbermann/Hildebrandt), it proves particularly helpful for an overall assessment to examine how those ideas are reflected in the history of the concert hall organ at the Leipzig Conservatory, all three renovations of which (1909, 1927, before 1940) were probably undertaken at Straube’s instigation and under his direct supervision. The four specifi­ cations appear as Appendix 6.110 Spanning just over forty years, Straube’s Conservatory position would become the longest uninterrupted professional association of his career, and the Conservatory’s organ consequently fell under his care for a longer time than any other single instrument.111 The original instrument: 1887 When Straube joined the Conservatory’s faculty in October 1907, he would have encountered the three-manual, thirty-seven stop instrument installed as Opus 491 by the E. F. Walcker firm in 1887. This was the ‘old mechani­ cal concert hall organ’ to which Fritz Stein referred in 1953 and on which Reger’s organ music (opp. 27 and 40/1, see above) first sounded at the insti­ tution in March 1906. The first page of the contract appears in facsimile as Figure 4.5.112 The organ was constructed with mechanical cone chests and a pneumatic machine for Manual I (items 1 and 10 under ‘übrige Bestandteile,’ below). Walcker likewise included a twenty-three stage crescendo mechanism, the sequence of which was added at the end of the contract. Clearly, Straube would have viewed the quite modest dimensions of the Conservatory’s organ as unreasonably restrictive for 1907, particularly with respect to the Sauer

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 221

Figure 4.5

E. F. Walcker: Orgelbau'. Opus 491 for the Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig, 1887. Contract facsimile, p. 1

222 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

instruments with which he had had extended contact. Probably the only fea­ ture of the 1887 instrument he would have considered progressive was the fifty-eight note manual compass (C-a3), a feature which he had proposed in 1906 for inclusion in the expanded St. Thomas organ.113 Nevertheless, Reger’s big chorale fantasies would have sounded a good deal less opulent at the Conservatory in 1906 than they did at Wesel Cathedral in 1900 or, for that matter, at St. Thomas Church either before or after the 1908 renova­ tions there. Furthermore, the Conservatory’s Walcker organ, with its six-stop swell division and single two-foot register (in Manual I’s principal chorus), would have fallen significantly short of realizing the very subtle, kaleido­ scopic approach to color that Straube had advocated in his Alte Meister des Orgelspiels already well before his Conservatory appointment. Because of the organ’s significance both to Straube and to a reception history of Reger’s music, the entire contract follows here in diplomatic transcription.

Table 4.1

E. F. Walcker Orgelbau: Opus 491 for the Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig, 1887 Transcription of the contract Opus 491. Leipzig. Conservatorium der Musik Laut Vertrag vom 6/2.86 nach us. Disposition vom 6. Februar 1886 lieferbar Anfang Januar 1887. Die Aufstellung des Werkes muß bis 1. März. 1887. vollendet sein.

Der Lieferungstermin ist bis Anfang Mai 1887 verlängert worden. Nach Mittelung V. H. Architekt Hesse kann der Saal uns am 15. September 87 fertig übergeben werden. Die Einweihung des Conservatoriums findet am 15. Oktober statt.

L Manual: (C-a’” 58 Noten) Holz eing. 15/12 86 A - g Prospekt eingeschr. 13/7.87 gs - a’*’ auf die Lade “ “

1.)

Principal 16’ untere Octave von Holz, mit Quint bis g, von c an von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschi.

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 223 C - H Prospekt eingeschr. 13/7.87 c - a ’” Lade “ “ eing. 15/12 86

2.)

ring. 17/1 87

4.)

Viola di Gamba 8’ von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschi.

Holz eing. 15/12 86 eing. 17/1 87

5.)

Dolce 8’ untere Octave Holz, Fortset­ zung Zinn von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschi.

eing. 15/12 86

6.)

Hohlflöte von Holz [... ?].

eing. 17/1 87

7.)

Trompete 8’ aufschlagend, Zungen & Kehlen von Messing, Schallbecher von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschi.

eing. 17/1 87

8.)

Octav 4’ von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschi.

eing. 17/1 87

9.)

Rohrflöte 4* von Metall.

eing. 17/1 87

10.) Quinte 2 2/3’ von Probzinn mit Expr. Stimmschi.

eing. 17/1 87

11.) Octav 2’ V. Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschi.

eing. 17/1 87

12.) Mixtur 2 2/3’ 5fach von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschi.

3.)

Principal 8’ aus rein engl. Zinn mt. Expr. Stimmschlitzen. Bourdon 8’ von Holz & Metall.

I I Manual; (C-al” 58 Notsn)

eing. 15/12 86

13.) Bourdon 16’ von Holz gedeckt.

C - H Prospekt eingeschr. 13/7.87 c - a ” ’ Lade “ “

14.) Geigenprincipal 8’ aus rein engl. Zinn Expr. Stimmschi. & in den Prospekt gestellt.

eing. 17/1 87

15.) Quintatön 8 *von Probzinn.

224 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition eing. 15/12 86

16.) Concertflöte 8’ von Holz offen.

Holz eing. 15/12 86 eing. 17/1 87

17.) Aeoline 8’ untere Octave Holz, Fortsetzung Zinn von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschlitzen.

eing. 15/12 86 (Stiefel) Schallbecher Zinn eing. 17/1 87 Platten bestellt 20/2.87

18.) Oboö 8’ einschlagend, Zungen & Platten von Messing, Stiefel von Holz, Schallbecher von Zinn.

eing. 17/1 87

19.) Fugara 4’ von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschi.

eing. 15/12 86

20.) Flauto dolce 4’ von Holz offen.

eing. 17/1 87

21.) Quinte 5 1/3’ von Probzinn mit Expr. Stimmschi.

eing. 17/1 87

22.) Comett - 8’ Ton 4 & 5fach von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschi.

III. Manual: fC-a” *58 Noten! Schwellwerk eingeschr. 10/1 87

23.) Liebl. Gedeckt 16’ von Holz mit doppelten Labien.

Holz eing. 10/1 87 Zinn eing. 17/1 87

24.) Salicional 8’ untere Octave Holz, Fortsetz, von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschlitzen.

eing. 10/1 87

25.) Liebl. Gedeckt 8’ von Holz mit doppelten Labien.

eingeschr. (Holz) Stiefel Schallbecher von Zinn eing. 17/1 87. Platten [ ] v. C - f ” fs’” - a ’” bestellt25/2.87

26.) Clarinette 8’ einschlagend, Zungen & Platten von Messing, Stiefel von Holz, Schallbecher von von Zinn.

eing. 17/1 87

27.) Spitzflöte 4* von Probzinn.

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 225 eing. 17/1 87

28.) Harmonia aetheria 2 2/3’ 3fach von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschlitzen.

Pedal: (C-f 30 Noten) eing. 18/1 87

29.) Principalbass 16’ von Holz offen mt. Expr. Stimmschlitzen.

eing. 18/1 87

30.) Violonbass 16’ von Holz offen mt. Expr. Stimmschi.

eingeschr. 15/12 86

31.) Subbass 16’ von Holz gedeckt (schwach intoniert).

eing. 18/1 87

32.) Posaunenbass 16’ aufschlagend, Zungen & Kehlen von Messing, Stiefel & Schallbecher von Holz.

eing. 18/1 87

33.) Quintbass 10 2/3’ von Holz.

eing. 18/1 87

34.) Octavbass 8’ von Holz offen.

Holz eing. 18/1 87 Zinn eing. 17/1 87

35.) Violoncello 8’ C-G von Holz, Fortsetzung von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschlitzen.

eing. 17/1 87

36.) Trompete 8’ aufschlagend, Zungen & Kehlen von Messing, Schallbecher von Probzinn mt.

Expr. Stimmschlitzen eing. 17/1 87

37.) Octav 4* von Probzinn mt. Expr. Stimmschlitzen.

Übrige Bestandteile: 1.)

Windladen zu 37 Registercanzellen mit Kegelventilen ohne Federdruck nach der von uns erfundenen Construction ‘Walcker’sche Kegelladen.’

226 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition 2.)

Regierwerk fur 3 Manuale & 1 Pedal aufs Zweckmäßigste eingerichtet & aufs Solideste gearbeitet.

3.)

Registerzugs-Mechanik für 28 Manual& 9 Pedal-Register.

4.)

Klavierkasten an der Orgel selbst angebracht, mit polirten Claviaturbacken & Registerstaffeln [ ] schwarz polirten Registemknöpfen nebst Registerauschriften auf Porzellanplättchen in verschiedenen Farben, sowohl für Register, als Tritte & Coppelungen.

5.)

Drei Manualclaviaturen je 58 Tasten mit weißem Bein & Ebenholz belegt.

6.)

Eine Pedalclaviatur 30 Tasten aus Eichenholz.

7.)

Eine Sitzbank verstellbar.

8.)

Ein Notenständer verstellbar.

9.)

Die Einrichtung folgender mechanischen Vorrichtungen:

Registerplättchen bestellt 4/5.87 I. Man. weiß II. Manroth III. Man blau Ped. [grün]

bestellt 23/III 87

No. 11.

1. ) Coppel II Man. z. I Man. 2. ) do III “ “ I do 3. ) do III “ “ II do 4. ) Coppelung I Man. z. Pedal 5.) do II do “ do 6. ) do III do “ do (ohne daß die Tasten mit herun­ tergehen) 7. ) 1 Collectivtritt f. Tutti 8.) 1 do “ Fortissimo 9.) 1 do “ Forte (ohne ein Register des III Man.)

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 227 10. ) 1 Tritt fìir Piano [crossed out, + illegible] 11. ) 1 [changed to 2] verstellbarer Combinationstritt 12. ) 1 Trit Forte-Pedal-Abteilung 13. ) 1 Tritt fur Piano-Pedal-Abtei lung die sich gegenseitig von selbst auslösen 14. ) Combinations-Prolongement 15. ) Sehr leicht & bequem zu hand­ habende Crescendo- & DecrescendoVorrichtung furs ganze Werk, mit Zifferblatt, die jeweiligen Starkegrade anzeigend & Walze auf jedem belie­ bigen punkt auslösbar (neuester Construction). 16. ) Vorrichtung zum gleichzeitigen Abstoßen (je mit einem leichten Druck) sämtlicher auf dem betreffenden Manual gezogener Register: a. ) ftir’s I Manual b. ) “ Udo c. ) “ III do (neueste Einrichtung) 17. ) Calcantenglocke 18. ) Schwelltritt fiir’s ganze III Manual 19. ) Octavcoppel vom I Man. in’s Pedal. 10. ) Einrichtung der pneumatischen Ma­ schine & des hinzu erforderlichen Regierwerkes fur’s I Man. 11. ) Schwellkasten fur’s III Manual aus Stammholz [?], mit beweglichen Jalousien. 12. ) Ein Compensationsfaltengeblaese mit Reservoir & 3 Schöpfern samt mecha­ nischem Getriebe, bestehend aus Schwungrad, Rothgußlagem, Excen­ tern, abgedrehter Transmission, Welle

228 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition & Rollen, sowie Vorgeleg, sowohl zum Hand- als Motorbetrieb. 13. ) Windkanaele.

Reihenfolge der Register auf der Crescendowalze. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Aeoline 8’ II. Dolce 8* I. Subbass 16* P. Salicional 8’ III. Liebl. Gedackt 8’ III. Flauto dolce 4’ II. Violoncello 8’ P. Bourdon 8’ I. Concertflöte 8* II. Viola di Gamba 8’ I. Liebl. Gedeckt 16’ III. Rohrfl. 4’ I. Clarinette 8’ III. Hohlflöte 8’ I. Violonbass 16’ P. Oboö 8’ II. Quintatön 8’ II. Spitzflöte 4* III. Bourdon 16’ II. Fugara 4’ II. Geigenprincipal 8’ II. Octavbass 8’ P.

14.

) Drei Regulatorbälge.

15.

) Lager, Träger, Raster, Böden, Treppen etc. sowie Conducten für die im Prospect stehenden Pfeifen.

16.

) Einrastriren sämtlicher Pfeifen.

17.

) Intonation & Stimmung.

18.

) Verpackung & Transport des Werkes, sowie Rückfracht der leeren Kisten & des Packmaterials.

19.

) Reise nach Leipzig & zurück, 4 Personen.

20.

) Aufstellung des Werkes an Ort & Stelle.

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory... 1907-1948 229 16. Octav 4’ I. Quinte 2 2/3’ I. 17. Principal 8’ I. 18. Harmonia aetheria 2 2/3’ IH. Principalbass 16’ P. 19. Trompete 8’ I. 20. Principal 16’I. Octav 4’ P. 21. Octav 2’ I. Quint 5 1/3’ II. Trompete 8’ P. 22. Cornett 8’ II. Quintbass 10 2/3’ P. 23. Mixtur 2 2/3’ 5f. I. Posaunenbass 16’ P.

Renovation I: the ‘modern 'organ o f 1909 The Sauer firm renovated and expanded the instrument in 1909.114 As with the renovations to Walcker’s Gewandhaus Opus 432 in the same year, the work included a complete pneumatic conversion. Straube’s ‘new’ Conserva­ tory organ retained much of Walcker’s original pipework—almost certainly revoiced—in an augmented specification of fifty-three stops (still signifi­ cantly smaller than Sauer’s Opus 1012 at St. Thomas) and a number of so-called Spielhilfen, including six free combinations.115 With the notable exception of the swell division, where Walcker’s original pair of 8’ stops was multiplied four times over, Sauer did not significantly expand the organ’s tonal capacities in the 8’ range (a single new 8’ flue in Manual I, II, and Pedal), and the organ included nothing new in terms of 16’ manual sound and reeds. Straube and Sauer instead concentrated on endowing the 1909 instru­ ment with a healthier family of higher partials to complement what they must have considered to be already (again, excepting Manual III) a more or less sufficient gravity: a new comet on Manual I; exchange of Manual II’s origi­ nal Quintbass 5 1/3’ for a two-rank Rauschquinte at 2 2/3’, conversion of the comet on Manual II to a three-rank mixture, and the addition of an indepen­ dent two-foot Piccolo; the inclusion of two further stops at 4’ and one at 2’ on Manual III to balance what became a very rich eight-stop 8’ chorus. The pedal division was retained almost intact from Walcker’s specification, with the sole addition of Gedackt stops at 16’ and 8’ (and a Pedaloktavkoppel, presumably amounting to Pedal-to-Pedal 4’, surely to compensate for the virtual absence of upperwork). It is not known whether Straube was pleased with the product, and extant Conservatory records do not include any kind of dedicatory program for the instrument or references to such a program. Nev­ ertheless, this is the organ on which pupils from 1909 through 1927— includ­ ing important figures like Hermann Keller, Günther Ramin, Karl Matthaei, and Friedrich Högner—would have learned to play Reger according to Straube’s standards.116The console is visible in two photographs of Reger at the organ in 1908 (from the left) and 1911 (from the right), both reproduced here as Figure 4.6.117

230

MaxReger and Karl Sträube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Figure 4.6

Max Reger at the Leipzig Conservatory, 1908 and 1911

Reger*s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 231

232 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Renovation II: the ‘compromise’organ o f 1927 The second major renovation of the Conservatory organ—and the one which seems to have engendered the most discussion in print— occurred in 1926-1927 amidst the Tagungen of the Gurlitt-Mahrenholz-Jahnn Orgelbe­ wegung. The Sauer firm’s Opus 1343 featured a specification by Straube which augmented the 1909 instrument by twenty-one stops (now a total of seventy-four) while attempting to demonstrate the principle of eclecti­ cism118 as the sine qua non of organ building. The essentially democratic ideal behind the 1927 instrument—i.e. that an organ, particularly an organ at a major teaching institution, ought to be able to accommodate varied reperto­ ries ‘authentically’ with respect to sound119—mirrored in a way the republi­ can experiment of post-World War I Germany itself. Aside from the obvious and much-discussed general connection between Straube’s expanded instru­ ment and Orgelbewegung ideology, one might draw three further observa­ tions from the renovated organ and the literature around it. (1) There is a considerable disparity between the issues emphasized in the literature and what actually happened to the Leipzig Conservatory organ in 1926 and 1927. Günther Ramin’s dedicatory concert on 2 October 1927 opened the Third Conference for German Organ Art in Freiberg/Saxony, and his (?) short explanation on the back of the program sheet, while it pointed out the flexibility of the instrument for both old and new music, neverthe­ less clearly underscored the ‘Baroque’ side of the compromise. According to the author of the remarks, the divisions had been constructed ‘in the manner of the old Hauptwerk (Manual I), Rückpositiv (Manual II), and Oberwerk (Manual III),’120 whereas more modem repertories (‘especially the works of Reger and contemporary composers’121) benefited from the ‘generous allowance for modem devices (Crescendowalze, swell shoe, free combina­ tions, couplers, etc.).’122 These remarks reappear in expanded form in the EinfUhrungsheft to the Freiberg conference as ‘Die neue Orgel des Landes­ konservatoriums zu Leipzig’ (including the complete specification) and in a still lengthier essay of the same name by Wilhelm Jung for the 15 Decem­ ber 1927 issue of the Zeitschriftfü r Kirchenmusiker.123The latter article bor­ rowed extensively from statements in the other two, most of which were absorbed and reproduced verbatim by Jung.124 Jung was above all intent to demonstrate the significance of the ‘new’ organ to the performance of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century repertories. He did not cite the entire stoplist, rather: o n ly a fe w s t o p s ... w h ic h m a k e a llo w a n c e fo r th e B a ro q u e c h a ra c te r o f th e o rg an . T h e y w o u ld in clu d e : in M a n u a l I: F la c h flö te 2 ’ in M a n u a l II: N a c h th o m 16’

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 233 S e sq u ia lte r 3 2 /3 ’ [sic] a n d 1 3 /5 ’ in M an u a l III:

K ru m m h o m 8 ’ N a c h th o m 8 ’ (o p e n ) B lo c k flö te 4 ’ S ifflö te 1’ S in g e n d R e g a l 8 ’ R a n k e tt 16’

in th e P ed a l:

N a c h th o m 2 ’ R a n k e tt 16’ S in g e n d K o rn e tt 2 ’125

For whatever reason, Jung failed to point out certain additional ‘Baroque’ stops: the new three-rank Zimbel and three-to-five-rank Scharff on Manuals I and II respectively; the expansion of Manual III toward the higher partíais (2 2/3’ / 1 3/5’ / 1 1/7’ / Cornett II-IV / Mixtur VI-VII [but no independent 1 1/3’!]); and the Pedal division’s new pair of mixtures where none had existed before (Rauschpfeife III, Mixtur VI). Even though no one appears to have done so in print, it was at least as pertinent to point out the enhanced ‘Romantic’ capabilities of the instrument: the new harmonic flute in Manual I, for example, or the ‘French’ reeds at 8’ and 4’ in Manual III, or the addition of a 32’ flue in the Pedal. Significantly enough, the most balanced and intel­ ligent view of these matters took the form of Hans Henny Jahnn’s negative assessment of the Leipzig project and others like it: ‘The compromise would destroy not only my organ type (the historic-scientific), but also the modem one, and then one has nothing more at all.’126 Straube, who would use the stoplist as a basis for his 1938 edition of Reger’s op. 27, evidently would not have concurred.127And Christhard Mahrenholz, who published his essay ‘Fünfzehn Jahre Orgelbewegung’ in the same year as Straube’s edition of op. 27, believed that a Kompromißorgel such as that in Leipzig was still far more ‘authentic’ with respect to Reger than to older repertories. T h e d e m a n d th a t th e o rg a n b e su ita b le fo r re p e rto rie s o f all p e rio d s is n o t a t all p o ssib le in th e stric te st sen se. T h e re fo re , in p ra c tic e th e d e m a n d fo r h isto ric a l a u th e n tic ity w ith re sp e c t to so u n d is a c tu a lly ra is e d o n ly fo r R e g e r o r (in th e c a m p o f th e A lsa tia n s) fo r C é sa r F ra n c k a n d C h a rle s-M a rie W idor, w h ile th e o ld e r m a s ­ te rs b e fo re B a c h are, a s A lb e rt S c h w e itz e r p u t it to m e , p la y a b le o n th is in stru ­ m e n t o n ly ‘in a p in c h .’128

(2) Since the 1927 organ had ostensibly proceeded from a broadly eclectic ideal, i.e. around ‘the tonal premises for a satisfactory performance of old as well as modem organ compositions,” 29 then the repertories played on it would naturally showcase the representative high water marks in organ music history. Ramin’s dedicatory program follows as Figure 4.7.

234 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Here again is a manifestation of the repertory Abfolge which had arisen from Straube’s ideas about music history. J. S. Bach remained central (three works before and after BWV 564, itself in three parts), and the organ music of the German Enlightenment was entirely circumvented in favor of one of the late chorales of Franck.130 Furthermore, it is not too much to say that the absence of a large work by Reger would have been as remarkable as the absence of a large work by Bach. The character of Wilhelm Jung’s commen­ tary expressed well the ideology behind the program’s architecture: H o w w o n d e rfu lly clear, p la in , a n d c h a ste so u n d e d th e a n tiq u e , p ra c tic a lly ju s t re d isc o v e re d o rg a n sto p s in th e w o rk s o f V in c e n t L ü b e c k . . . , S w e e lin c k . . . , [and] B u x te h u d e ... ; h o w b rillia n t a n d p o w e rfu l sh o n e th e o rg a n in w o rk s b y C é s a r F r a n c k . . . , R e g e r . . . , a n d [in] H e rm a n n G ra b n e r’s p o w e rfu l Fantasy 'Media vita in morte sumus. ’A n d a m id st all th e se w o rk s sh o n e th e im p e rish a b le sp le n d o r o f B a c h ’s Toccata, Adagio, and Fugue in C major.131

Jung’s wording is particularly arresting for the collective alte Meister (‘klar, schlicht, keusch’) and for Bach (‘unvergängliche Pracht’), descriptive lan­ guage typical of Orgelbewegung thinkers in Straube’s circle. But Reger’s music, too, continued to assume a pivotal place in the repertory, as the 1927 program suggests. Günther Ramin’s 1937 remark about the importance of Reger pedagogy could just as well have appeared ten years earlier: H o w o fte n o n e e n c o u n te rs a y o u n g m u sic ia n w h o re je c ts, say, R e g e r’s o rg a n m u sic b e c a u se R e g e r’s a rt n o lo n g e r su its th e m u sic a l a n d c u ltu ra l a ttitu d e o f o u r day. H e fo rg e ts th a t M a x R e g e r— a p a rt fro m a n y p e rso n a l o p in io n a b o u t th e m u sic a l-sp iritu a l [m u sik a lisc h -g e istig ] c o n te n t o f h is a rt— is a th o ro u g h ly sig n ifi­ c an t, s ty listic a lly d efin ed , a n d im a g in a tiv e fig u re in th e c o u rse o f o rg a n m u sic h is ­ tory. A n d h e fo rg e ts fu rth e rm o re th a t th e p la y in g o f R e g e r’s o rg a n w o rk s o ffe rs a w e a lth o f p ro b le m s a n d id e a s as to te c h n iq u e a n d to n a l a rc h ite c tu re , th e o v e rc o m ­ in g a n d a ssim ila tio n o f w h ic h re p re se n ts c o n sid e ra b le p ro g re ss in te c h n ic a l a n d m u sic a l stu d ie s a lto g e th e r.132

Straube himself would likely not have opted for Ramin’s two-pronged rea­ soning on technical and stylistic grounds, rather choosing to argue—as he in fact did once again in 1941133—for Reger’s significance to the repertory precisely on the basis of the ‘musical-spiritual content of his art.’ Regard­ less of whether the argument assumed a metaphysical (Straube) or practical (Ramin) guise, Straube and his Leipzig school were clearly intent on pre­ serving Reger’s prominence intact through the ideological wars of the organ reform. Given the apparent incoherence of the 1927 stoplist, though, it appears that Jahnn may have been right: in attempting to acknowledge a

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 235

Figure 4.7

Landeskonservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Günther Ramin’s dedicatory program of 2 October 1927 for Sauer Opus 1343

236 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

tonally ‘authentic’ Bach alongside a tonally ‘authentic’ Reger, the Leipzig Conservatory’s refurbished organ may well have failed at both. (3) Finally, one might easily infer from the 1927 stoplist and the remarks about it cited above that the organ was equipped with different kinds of stops voiced for different kinds of music. Indeed, Jung suggested as much by sin­ gling out certain quasi-historical additions in his 1927 essay cited above: Regals, Ranketts, and 1’ flutes for ‘Baroque’ pieces and, by implication, not for Franck or Reger. Werktreue with regard to various repertories was, after all, the point of the ‘compromise organ’ in the first place. But to whatever degree this principle may or may not have come to bear upon the character of the theory, organists seem to have troubled themselves little or not at all with it in practice, at least not with respect to Reger. Straube availed himself of the instrument’s entire resources in his 1938 edition of Reger’s op. 27, including requests for stops (e.g. Manual II’s Nachthom 16’ and Sesquialtera in the ini­ tial Handregistrierung) underscored by Jung in 1927 as making ‘allowance for the Baroque character of the organ.’ It may be argued in Straube’s defense that he believed he was doing something unusual (‘classical’) with Reger’s music in 1938, i.e. that he was in some sense being purposefully antiquarian and therefore diverging from common registration practice in order to prove a point (specifically, ‘that Reger’s organ compositions can be played on an instrument which belongs to the tradition of the classical period of organ­ building’134). An examination of the Straube pupil George Lillich’s Reger scores from 1929-1930 suggests otherwise, however. O f the six works which constitute Lillich’s bound volume of Reger pieces, three of them (Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Halleluja, Gott zu loben ’ op. 52/3, Fantasy and Fugue on BACH op. 46, Second Sonata in D minor op. 60) contain indications which in their nomenclature agree exactly with the Conservatory’s 1927 stoplist. From Lillich’s sometimes painstakingly detailed registrations, it is clear that Straube did not shy away from the organ’s ‘Baroque’ stops in his Reger teaching, either, at least not around 1930.135 Equally clear from Lillich’s scores is the very generous use of the Walze from ‘WO’ to ‘Tutti,’ a practice which necessitated the entrance of all the stops in some sort of graded order. Hence Reger’s own understanding of Organo pleno (‘full organ with all cou­ plers’), which in any case would have presupposed a stylistically unified instrument in 1900, had not changed in Straube’s mind, even though the ‘compromised’ makeup of the organ by definition no longer allowed for a completely satisfying tonal coherence.136 Lack of evidence (e.g. recordings) precludes any further knowledge of the tonal character of the 1927 instru­ ment, but it must be significant for the reception and practice of Reger’s music that more than a decade of Conservatory students studied that rep­ ertory on an organ dedicated to the democratic tenets of eclecticism. And regardless of claims that ‘the tonal premises of the post-Bach era were

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 237

affirmed to a particularly high degree’137 in the ‘new’ organ, Reger’s music did not sound at all the same at the Conservatory in 1910 as it did in 1930. Renovation III: the ‘Baroque organ ’o f the late 1930s, and destruction The history of the Conservatory’s organ came to an abrupt end on 29 February 1944 during the second heavy Allied air raid on Leipzig, at which time both the concert hall and library were destroyed. The instrument had undergone another renovation sometime before 1940, presumably (but not demonstra­ bly) at Straube’s instigation. The work did not expand the organ further, but rather concentrated on exchanging certain existing stops for new ones in the following manner. In Manual I: Clarino 4’ and Trompete 16’ replaced Gamba 8’ and Dolce 8’. In Manual II: Regal 4 ’, Dulzian 16’, and Kleinoktav 1’ replaced the ‘Baroque’ Nachthom 16’, Konzertflöte 8’, and Salicional 8’. In Manual III: Ital. Prinzipal 1’, Quinte 1 1/3’, None 8/9’, Acuta IV, and Basson 16’ replaced Soloflöte 8’, Gemshom 8’, Quintatön 8’, Viola 8’, and Femflöte 4’. The pedal division remained essentially unaltered except for an apparent recomposition of the two 1927 mixtures: Rauschpfeife III was augmented to Rauschpfeife IV; Mixtur VI became Mixtur IV-VI. It is difficult to know whether additional changes in nomenclature indicate either replacement or revoicing of a certain rank. Man. I’s Dolzett 4’, for example, became Sch­ weizerpfeife 4’ and may well have been a new stop. It seems less likely, though, that Man. Ill’s Schwebung 8’ was different from the earlier Vox celestis 8’. The net effect of these alterations was clearly a further brighten­ ing of the sound at the expense of the 8’ stops, some of which may have been original to the 1887 instrument (Man. I’s Gamba and Dolce, Manual II’s Konzertflöte). In addition, all three manuals now had reed choruses at 16’-8’-4’, balancing the Pedal’s 16’-8’-4’-2’ reed chorus from 1927. Straube placed the renovation ‘around 1938,’ and he described the result as ‘a Baroque organ according to the strict principles of the “Orgelbewegung”,’138 indicating his conviction that the altered disposition had super­ seded the ‘compromise’ of the old one. It is possible that the key action of the final organ (perhaps already in 1927?) was electric rather than tubular pneumatic. Andreas Webersinke, who studied with Straube in 1938-1939, recalled: I f I a m n o t m ista k e n , th e o rg a n in th e C o n se rv a to ry ’s c o n c e rt h a ll m u s t h a v e b e e n re b u ilt o n c e a g a in in th e 1930s. I re m e m b e r a m a g n ific e n t in stru m e n t w ith e le c ­ tric , n o t m e c h a n ic a l a c tio n .139

O f course, the instrument destroyed in 1944 was hardly a ‘Baroque’ organ. In fact, the original organ from 1887 almost certainly stood more solidly on the ground of older traditions than did any of its successors. Straube, how­

238 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

ever, seems to have viewed the tonal history of the instrument as ‘Romantic/ subjective’ (1887, 1909)— ‘compromise’ (1927)— ‘Baroque/objective’ (ca. 1938). The organ retained its full complement of Spielhilfen, and—apart from the degree to which its tonal resources were perceived as ‘Baroque’— it seems not to have precluded study of ‘Romantic’ composers, Reger promi­ nent among them. But unless that study no longer included what had long since become conventional use of the Walze as a dynamic shaping device (i.e., unless Straube opted for very selective crescendi which employed only certain stops drawn either manually or via the free combinations), the char­ acter of Reger’s music would have been noticeably affected. The Sauer archive in Müllrose contains a diagram of the console layout made in Febru­ ary 1940, the last known documentation of the instrument. The diagram fol­ lows as Figure 4.8.

Landeskonservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Diagram of Wilhelm Sauer Opus 1343 from February 1940

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 2 3 9

Figure 4.8

240 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Notes 1.

2.

The notion of ‘school* as applied to Straube and his pupils was operative already during Straube’s lifetime. See e.g. the Straube pupil Erwin Zillinger’s remarks concerning the Freiberg organ conference in 1927: ‘By unanimous vote the chairmanship was assumed by Dr. Straube himself, who—personally and with his “school”—marches at the fore of the latest, leading organ reform movement... * [‘Den Vorsitz übernahm auf einstim­ migen Antrag D. Straube selbst, der somit nunmehr wiederum—persönlich und mit seiner “Schule”—an der Spitze der jüngsten, führenden Orgelbewegung marschiert... *] Erwin Zillinger, ‘III. Tagung fur deutsche Orgelkunst in Freiberg i. S. 2.-7. Okt. 1927,’ Zeitschrift für Musik, November 1927, 640. Still, the so-called ‘Straube Schule’ is not altogether synonymous with the ‘Leipziger Schule’ as most organists today consider this latter term. For example, Walter Niemann’s 1917 essay ‘Die alte und die neue Leipziger Schule’ addresses compositional styles associated with the city of Leipzig (e.g. Mendelssohn/Reinecke vs. Reger/Karg-Elert), not organ playing. Allgemeine Musik-Zeitungy 14 September 1917, 559-560. Some writers—most of them Straube’s pupils—began to acknowledge a wide prov­ enance for the Straube school already in the 1920s. It is of course difficult to know exactly what is meant by statements like that of Franz Adam Beyerlein claiming by 1930 that ‘in Berlin [Wolfgang] Reimann and [Fritz] Heitmann, in Cologne [Heinrich] Boell, in Munich [Emanuel] Gatscher, and in Leipzig [Günther] Ramin and [Karl] Hoyer teach according to his principles.’ [‘in Berlin Reimann und Heitmann, in Köln Boell, in München Gatscher und in Leipzig Ramin und Hoyer in seinem Sinn unterrichten.’] Beyerlein, ‘Karl Straube,’ 894. Beyerlein’s selection of teachers is almost certainly taken from Johannes Wolgast’s list of two years earlier, with which it is identical, even in the ordering of names. Cf. Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 24. By the time of his retirement, Straube had taught students from an extraordinarily wide geographical area (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Rumania, Holland, England, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Russia, Latvia, Estonia, Iceland, the USA, Mexico, Chile, and Austra­ lia; notably no one from the Romanic countries), although it is difficult to estimate the consequences for the reception of Reger. The most thorough attempt to document the activities of Straube’s students is that of Johannes Wolgast, Ibid., but even his study is quite incomplete for the period through 1928. Günter Hartmann’s recent discussion of Straube’s pupils is likewise very selective and concentrates on biographical details only insofar as they intersect the political issues with which his book is primarily concerned. See Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule; see also Hans Joachim Moser’s cursory discussion of the Straube school in Hans Joachim Moser, Die evangelische Kirchen­ musik in Deutschland (Berlin/Darmstadt: Merseburger, 1953), 446-448. Of course, any extended discussion of the Straube ‘school’ is best informed by other prominent ‘schools’ (German and otherwise) with which it coexisted (e.g. Marcel Dupré in Paris) and from which it emerged (e.g. Moritz Brosig in Breslau, Heinrich Reimann in Berlin, and, though less directly related, Josef Rheinberger in Munich and Philipp Wolfrum in Hei­ delberg).

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 241 3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

With one dissenting vote. For the list of applicants see Stiehl, ‘Organist und Kantor zu St. Thomas,’ 131. Stiehl places some significance on Straube’s non-Saxon heritage, and he argues on the basis of extant documents that Straube owed his appointment at St. Thomas to the influential voice of Pastor D. Oskar Pank, senior pastor of St. Thomas and superintendent of Leipzig. During Straube’s childhood, Pank had served certain Berlin parishes and had probably known the Straube family via Straube’s father, who was at the time organist of the Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche. See Stiehl’s discussion and Straube’s letters to Pank acknowledging the latter’s kindness in Ibid. ‘ ... vor allem auf saubere Arbeit, glatte Form und weiche freundliche Empfindung drin­ gender “Leipziger Geschmack’” ... Niemann, ‘Die alte und neue Leipziger Schule,’ 559. It is difficult to overestimate the influence of Carl Reinecke (1824-1910), whose per­ sonal acquaintances with Mendelssohn and Schumann had helped shape a conservative, anti-Lisztian aesthetic passed on to influential pupils like Hugo Riemann. Reinecke’s musical taste also tempered decisively the Gewandhaus concerts, of which he was the director from 1860-1895, and the curriculum of the Conservatory, where he taught from 1860-1902. Further, Reinecke had functioned as the Conservatory’s director just prior to Straube’s move to Leipzig, 1897-1902. ‘Ganz anders liegen die Verhältnisse in Leipzig! Abgesehen davon, daß Dir in Leipzig die Orgelconcerte, da Du doch selbst Organist an der Thomaskirche bist, sehr wenig Kosten machen werden, die doch größtenteils durch die Konzerteinnahmen getilgt werden—da würde ich an Deiner Stelle eine Unmasse von Orgelconcerten veranstalten—um den Leipzigern zu zeigen, was Orgelspielen heißt, nachdem der grandiose Faulpelz Homeyer alles in sanften Schlaf gesenkt hat! Da wäre ich Dir natürlich riesig dankbar, wenn Du da ein Regerorgelconcert machtest!’ Letter of 26 November 1902, in Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 29-30. Since 1885, Gewandhaus organist Paul Homeyer (1853-1908) had taught organ and theory at the Conservatory, and he was still Straube’s senior colleague there from October 1907 to July 1908. Reger’s futile attempt, through the Leipzig Riedelverein’s director Georg Göhler, to have Homeyer perform his op. 27 in St. Thomas Church on Reformation Day 1899 certainly would have contributed to the composer’s negative view. See Reger’s letter to Göhler of 28 October 1899 in Popp, ed., Der junge Reger, 454-455. Evidently, Reger allowed his opinion of the ‘Faulpelz’ Homeyer to be overruled by a need to propagandize his own music: he had dedicated the first volume of the Twelve Pieces op. 65 to Homeyej earlier in 1902. ‘Nun, wenn du in Leipzig bist, wird im Verhalten der Herren Verleger mir gegenüber balde ein anderer Ton eintreten; denn denke bis dato ist in Leipzig von mir noch nicht ein Ton gesungen u. gespielt worden! Dein Orgelconcert mit nur Reger wird für jeden Fall da Mordsaufsehen machen, ebenso der Liederabend mit Hess u. Bergen!’ Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 39. The organ recital to which Reger refers took place at St. Thomas Church on 4 March 1903 as the third in a series of three inaugural programs played by Straube upon his arrival in Leipzig. See Appendix 5. Ludwig Heß and Franz Bergen sang a selection of Reger’s Lieder in Leipzig, accompanied by Reger himself, on 27 February and 3 March respectively. ‘“Freund” Homeyer wird wohl nun ganz außer sich sein vor Wut! Du—höre: wenn Du

242 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition definitiv am Conservatorium angestellt bist, dann wirke mal kräfti glichst. daß ich ans Conservatorium nach Leipzig berufen werde!’ Ibid., 46. 9. ‘Liebster Carl! Schnell schreiben, damit Du diesen Brief balde erhältst! Ich schrieb Dir heute schon Karte, wo ich Dir dringendst wegen Berlin (Kaiser Wilhelm Gedächtnis­ kirche?) abrieth! Gehe nicht nach Berlin! Du würdest Dich in diesem Geldgetriebe—nur Geldgetriebe—doch nur unglücklich fühlen—u. Du würdest in Berlin mit viel mehr Kabalen u. Rancünen zu kämpfen haben als in Leipzig; außerdem einen solch schönen Wirkungskreis wie in Leipzig (Bachvereinüüi würdest Du in Berlin nifi erhalten! Dir fehlt für Berlin die Hauptsache: Du bist nicht Jude!—Wenn sie Dir in Berlin eine fürstliche Bezahlung bieten—dann ja—aber sonst nicht! Ich z.B. gehe nifi nach Berlin! Also bleib in Leipzig!’ Letter of 31 May 1906 in Ibid., 112-113. In 1903 Straube had succeeded Hans Sitt as director of the Leipzig Bachverein. He had considered a move to Berlin already in 1905, as is evident from Reger’s postcard to him of 30 May 1905, in which Reger used the same argument to advise his friend against a relocation. Ibid., 89. 10. Reger reported in the same letter that ‘the affair with the Academy is absolutely finished’ [‘ ... die Affaire mit der Akademie ist absolut erledigt... ’]. Ibid. He had taught there only since May of the previous year. The possibility of Straube’s abandoning his Leipzig posts (St. Thomas Church and Bachverein) arose during one of the most difficult periods in Reger’s life. The failure of his first major orchestral work (the Sinfonietta op. 90) in the previous year had occasioned a crippling depression undoubtedly exacerbated by the death of his father on 28 September 1905, his failure to be elected to the Executive Com­ mittee of the Allgemeiner Deutscher Musikverein and his subsequent withdrawal from that body altogether, a physical breakdown during a performance on 7 April 1906, and his resignation from the Munich Academy effective 15 July the same year. 11. Nikisch had succeeded Reinecke in 1902 as both Gewandhauskapellmeister and Direc­ tor of the Conservatory. He resigned his Conservatory Directorship ‘for lack of time’ [‘wegen Zeitmangels’] on 1 October 1906, just after Straube had launched an active campaign for an appointment. See further Paul Röntsch, ‘Bericht über die ersten 75 Jahre des Königlichen Konservatoriums der Musik zu Leipzig,* in Festschrift zum 75-jähri­ gen Bestehen des Königlichen Konservatoriums der Musik zu Leipzig am 2. April 1918 (Leipzig: Siegel, 1918), 24-25. 12. ‘Hochgeehrter Herr Geheimerat! Der Inhalt dieses Briefes wird keine Freude erwecken. Er enthält in kurzen Worten die Nachricht, daß die Frage meiner Berufung nach Berlin im Laufe der vergangenen Woche leider eine mehr als brennende geworden ist. Ich hatte dort drei Conferenzen mit Generalsuperintendent Koehler und Excellenz von Mirbach. Nicht um dieser Unterredungen willen, sondern studienhalber in den Räumen der König­ lichen Bibliothek war ich nach Berlin gefahren; dort hat mich Exc. Mirbachs weit­ reichender Arm erlangt. Die Lage der Dinge ist jetzt eine solche, daß, wenn ich heute nach Berlin schreiben würde: “ich komme,” meine Berufung eine Tatsache wäre, deren Realität wahrscheinlich im November zu Tage treten würde. [f| Seitens des Kurato­ riums der Kirche ist man willens, mir eine jährliche Einnahme von sechstausend Mark allein aus meiner kirchlichen Stellung heraus für Lebenszeit zu garantieren. In wenigen Jahren soll ich die gesamte kirchenmusikalische Leitung (Chor und Orgel) übernehmen,

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 243 man hofft ... späterhin zu den sonntäglichen Kirchenmusiken Orchester hinzuziehen zu können, und es ist die Absicht des Kuratoriums, durch das mir angebotene Amt der Gedächtniskirche eine ähnliche dominierende Stellung in kirchenmusikalischen Dingen zu erobern, wie die Thomaskirche sie schon lange traditionell besizt ... Des weiteren besprach ich mit Exc. von Mirbach die Möglichkeit meiner Berufung an die Spitze des “Akademischen Institutes für Kirchenmusik.” Er erwiderte mir darauf, daß er mir die Stellung natürlich nicht Zusagen könne im Falle der Vakanz, aber er könne mir ver­ sprechen, daß er seinen ganzen Einfluß aufbieten würde, um meine Berufung in diese Stellung durchzusetzen ... [f] Da ich ... Künstler bin und bei der Wahl meines Wirkung­ skreises vor allem auch die Weite meiner persönlichen Einflußsphäre maßgebend ist, so glaube ich den Berliner Antrag nicht ohne weiteres ablehnen zu dürfen. Zum ersten werde ich in der größten Stadt Deutschlands einen größeren Schülerkreis als in Leipzig um mich sammeln können, vor allen Dingen werde ich dem internationalen musikalischen Leben meine Auffassungen über Kunst und Kunstfragen klarlegen können; zum zweiten wird der preußische Hof alle meine Arbeiten, vor allen Dingen auch Choraufftihrungen im weitesten Maße unterstützen ... ; zum dritten werde ich eine der größten und schön­ sten Orgeln Deutschlands unter meinen Händen haben, als Spieler bin ich aber abhängig von meinem Instrument; zum vierten will man mir einen auffallend hohen Gehalt zu­ sprechen. [10 Um in Leipzig bleiben zu können und dabei doch die Garantie der dau­ ernden und verstärkten Wirkungskraft meiner Persönlichkeit zu haben, scheint mir die Erfüllung nachfolgender vier Wünsche notwendig zu sein: 1. Umbau und Erweiterung der Thomasorgel bis zur Größe der Nicolaiorgel. 2. Die bindende Zusage des Rates der Stadt, daß, solange der Bachverein meiner Leitung untersteht, die gesammten Thomaner in allen Chorconcerten des Vereins mitzusingen haben, und zwar nicht allein im Concert, sonder vorher in einer Studioprobe und dann auch in der Generalprobe. 3. Erhöhung des Organistengehaltes auf 5,000,-M pro anno. 4. Nicht der kleinlichen Eitelkeit wegen, sondern zur Stärkung meiner Autorität: die Ver­ leihung des Titels eines königlichen Professors. Ich möchte betonen, daß seit unserer letzten Unterredung im Juli meinerseits keine Schritte getan worden sind, um diese Berufung herbeizuführen.—Ganz im Gegenteil: im Juni hatte ich meinen Propagandisten in Berlin mein Nichtkommen klar und deutlich angesagt, aber die beiden maßgebenden Persönlichkeiten sind von sich aus, aus eigenster Initiative, an mich herangetreten ... Die Berufung erfolgt seitens des Gemeindekirchen­ rates erst, wie schon oben erwähnt, im November. Exc. von Mirbach hat mich jedoch gebeten, ihm baldmöglich Nachricht über meine Entschlüsse zukommen zu lassen, denn falls ich Zusagen sollte, so seien Vakanz und damit die eingelaufenen Bewerbungen erledigt, [f] Nebenbei gesagt: Um die Stellung hat sich aus Deutschland alles, was Orgel spielt, bemüht, ich bin die einzige klägliche Persönlichkeit, die dieses Rennen nicht mit­ gemacht hat.’ Letter reproduced in Stiehl, ‘Organist und Kantor zu St. Thomas,’ 134-137. On the subsequent renovation of the St. Thomas organ, see Chapter 2. Both Straube’s

244 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

father, Johannes, and his mentor Otto Dienel had studied at the Berlin Institute for Church Music, where Straube sought an appointment. Note that Straube was willing to accept 1,000 marks a year less in order to remain in Leipzig. His starting salary at St. Thomas had been 1,800 marks per year, about which Reger commented in a letter from 16 March 1903: ‘But I cannot keep one thing from you, that I find your salary— 1,800 marks per year—not good at all: that has to change very soon. Every morning you earn 1,800 marks here and there—wow! that is really not well paid at all!’ [‘Eines kann ich Dir aber nicht verhehlen, daß ich die Bezahlung an Dich— 1800 M pro Jahr—gar nicht gut finde; das muß sich doch sehr balde ändern. Du verbringst ja jeden Vormittag ganz dort u. dann 1800 M—Donnerwetter, das ist gar nicht gut bezahlt!’] Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 46. See the notice of employment in Musikalisches Wochenblatt, 10 October 1907, 823. The unique nature of Straube’s appointment seems to have gone unnoticed until now, but it confirms a kind of specialization among organists of which Straube is an early example. Straube himself would later acknowledge the parallel phenomenon of his appointment to the St. Thomas Cantorate as the first non-composer in that position (see Chapter 2, note 1). Aside from Homeyer and Heynsen, Straube’s predecessors at the Conservatory had been Carl Ferdinand Becker (organist of St. Nicholas Church, employed 1843-1863 for organ and ‘lectures on musical topics’ [‘Vorlesungen über musikalische Gegenstände’]); Robert Papperitz (organist of St. Nicholas Church, employed 1849-1903 for harmony, composition, organ, and piano), Hermann Kretzschmar (employed 1871-1875 for theory, composition, piano, and organ); Carl Piutti (organist of St. Thomas Church, employed 1875-1902 for theory and organ); Heinrich Klesse (employed 1876-1904 for violin, viola, organ, voice, and choir); and Wilhelm Rust (Cantor of St. Thomas School, employed 1878-1892 for theory, composition, and organ). Of these, all but three (the first generation teachers Becker and Papperitz, and the Thomaskantor Rust) were themselves products of the Leipzig Conservatory. See further Röntsch, ‘Bericht über die ersten 75 Jahre.’ Johannes Wolgast’s assertion that Straube was hired as Homeyer’s successor appears to be erroneous. See Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 23. This is probably the source of Klotz’s remark to the same effect in his Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart essay ‘Straube’ from 1965. Hartmann, too, suggests that it was Homeyer’s professorship which Straube received after the former’s death on 27 July 1908. See Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 42. ‘ ... dem erst Dreiunddreißigjährigen nach nur drei Jahren Dienstzeit in Sachsen jetzt schon den gewünschten Titel zukommen zu lassen.’ Cited in Stiehl, ‘Organist und Kantor zu St. Thomas,’ 142. He was the successor of Heinrich Zöllner, who had been employed in both positions from 1902 to 1906. Concerning the appointments, Reger commented to Hofrat Klinkerfuß: ‘Both positions are extremely pleasant; I have very little work from them; only eight hours per week, which I may arrange as I wish, and for this I am paid quite magnifi­ cently!’ [‘Beide Stellungen sind äußerst angenehm; ich habe sehr wenig Arbeit dabei; wöchentlich nur acht Stunden, die ich legen kann, wie ich will, und ich werde dafür

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 245

18.

19.

20.

21.

ganz brillant honoriert!’] Letter of 5 March 1907 in Reger, Briefe eines deutschen Meisters, 154. 4 ... und werden sein Privatschüler. Will er das nicht, so kommen Sie zurück nach L. und gehen den 1. Okt. nach Frft. zu Hausegger und Iwan Knorr.’ Letter of 6 March 1906, in Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 109. Siegmund von Hausegger (1872-1948) was at the time director of the museum concerts in Frankfurt. The Reinecke pupil Iwan Knorr (1853-1916) had taught theory and composition at Frankfurt’s Hoch Conservatory since 1883. ‘Also: ich bin doch der Ansicht, daß Sie zum 1. Oktober nach Frankfurt müssen. Aus folgenden Gründen: Bei Reger haben Sie unter dem segensreichen Einfluß einer genialen Instinktnatur gestanden,—jetzt wechseln Sie, gehen zu Hausegger um Beziehungen zu einem Geist zu bekommen, der thatsächlich ein Produkt der höchsten geistigen Kultur ist.—Verfeinert und sensitiv, wie ich kaum eine zweite Persönlichkeit kenne ... Da kann man lernen, was Stil heißt.—Natürlich werden Sie Reger gegenüber diesen Plan verheim­ lichen müßen. Er liebt Hausegger gamicht, aus dem bewußten Gefühl, daß H. ihn nach vielen Seiten hin überragt, trotz Regers viel größerer instinktiven Genialität... fl[] Regers Art Bach’s Orgelwerke zu interpretieren bedaure ich deshalb, weil meine persönlichen künstlerischen Ziele in diesem Punkt dadurch mißverstanden werden könnten, sobald R. Schule macht.—Gegen Effecte, wie die von Ihnen geschilderten, bin ich sehr eingenom­ men.’ Ibid. Cf. also Chapter 1, especially note 12. See Chapter 1. The same thinking, by the way, informed Hugo Riemann’s opposition to the emergence of conservatory education and his lament over the consequent lack of competent musicians in the traditional sense. See especially Riemann’s insightful essays ‘Unsere Konservatorien,’ in Präludien und Studien / (Leipzig: 1895; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967), 22-33; and ‘Musikunterricht sonst und jetzt,’ in Präludien und Stu­ dien II (Leipzig: 1900; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967), 1-31. ‘Freilich finde ich in Ihren Äußerungen den Satz: “Ob Geistesbildung und Musik im Grund miteinander zu tun haben, ist fraglich.” Mir scheint diese Ansicht der Wirklichkeit gegenüber nicht Stich halten zu können. Die Großen im Reiche der Musik sind geistig geschulte Menschen gewesen, von Sethus Calvisius, Heinrich Schütz, Johann Hermann Schein angefangen bis zu Richard Wagner ... Erstaunlich ist die Weite des Denkens und Wissens bei Johann Nepomuk David, diese Kräfte und ein tiefes religiöses Bewußtsein geben ihm den Mut, sein Lebenswerk so zu schaffen, wie er es vor Gott verantworten kann, d.h. im Kampf mit seiner Umwelt. Max Reger ist im instinktiven Handeln und Denken treffsicher, aber mangelnde geistige Schulung und das Fehlen eines drängenden Willens zu einer durchdachten und gesicherten Erkenntnis tragen nach sich Ungleich­ heiten in seiner Kunst. Bei der hohen Begabung, mit der er begnadet gewesen ist, wäre ihm der Zutritt in den Kreis der musikalisch Größten gewiß gewesen, wenn nicht Er­ ziehung und ererbte menschliche Schwächen sich als ein Hindernis erwiesen hätten. An Unmittelbarkeit der Erfindungskraft überragt er David, dagegen kann er sich mit seinem Nachfolger nicht messen in der Fähigkeit des großen architektonischen Aufbaues eines symphonischen Satzes.’ Letter of 26 April 1943 in Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 152-153. The sentence which serves Straube as a point of departure here is found in

246 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

22.

23.

24. 25.

Bernhard Schwarz, ‘Straube und die Thomasschule,’ in Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, 28. It reads in fact ‘Ob Geistesbildung und Musik im Grunde etwas mitein­ ander zu tun haben, mag fraglich sein.* Straube’s thanks to Schwarz constitutes one of his longest and most fascinating letters, in which he discusses the effect of Geistesbildung on the music of Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Bruckner, Pfitzner, and Strauss, together with the assessment of Reger and David excerpted here. Of himself, Straube goes on to say that he felt compelled to gain certain intellectual tools in order to balance his lack of musical talent. [‘In meiner eigenen Sache hat die Schwäche der musikalischen Begabung mich gezwungen, wenigstens einen gewissen Grad von wei­ terem Wissen über die Musik hinaus zu erwerben, um die Armut meines Musikertums in irgendeiner Form auszugleichen.’] Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 153-154. Given the relative importance of instinct and intellect in Straube’s thinking, the remark is prob­ ably not disingenuous, but cf. Chapter 1, note 84. ‘Anton Bruckner [war], unberührt von dem Wissen der Welt, ein Kind Gottes ... ’ Ibid., 153. The romanticized rhetorical antithesis derives directly from St. Paul: ‘Denn dies ist unser Ruhm: das Zeugnis unseres Gewissens, daß wir in Einfalt und göttlicher Lauter­ keit, nicht in fleischlicher Weisheit, sondern in der Gnade Gottes unser Leben in der Welt geführt haben, und das vor allem bei euch.’ 1 Cor. 1:12 Lutherbibel Standardausgabe. It is, of course, the inherent tension between this idea and the notion that intellectual schooling contributes positively to an artist’s worth which makes Straube’s standpoint interesting. For a comparison of Reger and ‘his brother in Christ’ [‘sein(em) Bruder in Christo’] Bruckner, see e.g. Straube, ‘Max Reger,’ Die Gesellschaft 18 (1902): 171; and his letter to Oskar Söhngen of 15 November 1946 in Idem, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 212. Particularly since it proves to be such an important concept in Straube’s thinking, one ought to note here the tenacity with which the German ‘Geist’ resists a satisfactory Eng­ lish translation. ‘Intellect’ approaches the sense in the present context insofar as it evokes the noetic capacities of (objective) knowledge, understanding, and reason over against (subjective) feeling and willing. Unlike English ‘intellect,’ though, ‘Geist’ carries clearly subjective overtones as well: ‘mind’ (not ‘intellect’!) as opposed to ‘matter,’ as in St. Mk. 14: 38, translated by Luther ‘Der Geist ist willig; aber das Fleisch ist schwach.* (Vulgate: ‘Spiritus [i.e. pneuma] quidem promptus caro vero infirma.*); and ‘spirit’ as opposed to ‘letter.’ From this latter meaning issues the more common notion of ‘Geist’ as ‘ghost,’ as in ‘der heilige Geist’ (likewise Latin ‘Spiritus’ and Greek ‘pneuma’). The interlocking notions of intellect, mind, and spirit lend a unique force to German ‘Geist* quite untrans­ latable into a single English word or expression but nevertheless central to the following discussion. ‘Ob Straube möglicherweise mit Regers Übersiedelung nach Leipzig Belastungen für sich selbst befürchtete ... ’ Cadenbach, Max Reger und seine Zeit, 41. ‘So ist auch bei der Berufung Regers nach Leipzig (1907) die Hand des Freundes deut­ lich zu spüren. Er schaffte die Verbindung zu den geistigen Kreisen der Pleißestadt, er gewann namentlich die führenden Persönlichkeiten der Universität für Reger, dessen Ernennung zum Universitätsmusikdirektor allein im Vertrauen auf Straubes Urteil und

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 247

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Autorität erfolgte. Die Schwere dieser Verantwortung läßt sich heute kaum mehr ermes­ sen. Denn Regers künstlerische Stellung war damals in der breiteren Öffentlichkeit noch schwer umstritten. Zumal in Leipzig galt er der Presse, aber auch der konserva­ tiven, noch der Tradition Carl Reineckes verschworenen Clique des Konservatoriums als Umstürzler schlimmster A rt... *Stein, ‘Max Reger und Karl Straube,* 56-57. University Professor Hugo Riemann, for example, would almost certainly have objected to Reger’s hiring. It is perhaps no mere coincidence that the break between Reger and his former mentor occurred precisely during this period, just after Reger’s move to Leipzig. See the open exchange between the two men in their essays of the same name, ‘Dege­ neration und Regeneration in der Musik.* ‘Die Verbindung der Organisten- mit der Universitätsmusikdirektors-Stelle ist eine Zufallsfrage ... ’ Letter reproduced in Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 126. Interestingly enough, the debate over the organist post seems to have taken the confessional question as its sole point of departure. The issue of whether Reger was technically equipped to carry out those duties appears never to have arisen. ‘Herr Max Reger nun ist eine solche Kraft, man darf ohne Übertreibung sagen: er ist einer der allerersten lebenden Musiker. Und wenn ich auch seine Werke keineswegs vorbehaltlos acceptire, so erkenne ich doch die grosse Meisterschaft und eminente Begabung, das echt Künstlerische und den tiefen Emst des Mannes... ffi] Die Auskömmlichkeit der Position würde Herrn Reger durch eine Lehrerstelle am Konservatorium gesichert, die diesem neuen Glanz (dessen es sehr bedarf!) verleihen könnte.’ Ibid. Reger expressed his gratitude to Wach ‘for all the effort you have expended on account of my appointment in Leipzig’ [‘ ... für all die Mühe, die Sie sich anläßlich meiner Berufung nach Leipzig gegeben haben’] in a letter of 7 March 1907. Reger, Briefe eines deutschen Meisters, 154. ‘Als Nachfolger Prof. H. Zöllner’s wurde Max Reger zum Universitätsmusikdirektor in Leipzig gewählt. Die Berufung Reger’s auf diesen Posten wird als bereits perfekt hingestellt, während bezüglich Reger’s Eintritt in das Lehrerkollegium des Leipziger kgl. Konservatoriums, wie es scheint, dermalen erst Vorverhandlungen schweben. Hof­ fentlich kommen auch diese zu einem gedeihlichen Abschlüsse; denn man könnte das Institut nur dazu beglückwünschen, wenn es sich für das Lehrfach der Musikalischen Theorie und des Kontrapunkts einer Autorität wie Reger versicherte.’ Musikalisches Wochenblatt, 28 February 1907, 232. The following issue reported that ‘Max Reger has already accepted appointments as University Music Director and as Docent at the Royal Conservatory in Leipzig.’ [‘Max Reger hat die Wahl zum Universitäts-Musikdirektor und als Lehrer am kgl. Konservatorium in Leipzig bereits angenommen.’] Ibid., 7 March 1907, 255. See Appendix 2, which documents organ performance at the Leipzig Conservatory from 1900. Aside from the obviously dominant position of Rheinberger’s sonatas during the period around 1900, it is difficult to make useful generalizations about the repertory. Hermann Stephani pointed this out already in his 1918 essay ‘Paul Gerhardt,’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 4 October 1918, 427. Stephani does not mention Straube. For a discus­ sion of the Jehmlich organ in the Marienkirche/Zwickau which, due to Gerhardt’s efforts,

248 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

32.

33.

34. 35.

was associated with Reger performance from 1900 onwards, see Paul Gerhardt, ‘Die erneuerte Orgel der Marienkirche zu Zwickau i. Sa.,* Zeitschrift Jur Kirchenmusiker, 1 February 1930, 153-155. By the tum of the century, the instrument included ‘p n e u ­ m a t i c m e m b r a n e c h e s t s * invented at the time by the Cologne organ builder Seifert and perfected by the Jehmlich brothers, with a purely pneumatic playing mecha­ nism driven solely by wind pressure’ [‘um jene Zeit von dem Kölner Orgelbauer Seifert erfundene, durch Gebr. Jehmlich vervollkommnete ‘p n e u m a t i s c h e M e m ­ b r a n e n - W i n d l a d e n ’ mit durchweg rein pneumatischer, nur durch Druckluft betätigter Spieleinrichtung ... *]. Ibid., 153. It also featured an ‘unclear and badly con­ structed “English Tuba mirabilis 8”*from the firm of Hill & Co. in London—with 350 mm wind pressure!* [‘unsauber und schlecht gearbeitete “englische Tuba mirabilis 8’” von der Firma Hill & Co. in London—mit 350 mm Winddruck!’] which Gerhardt evi­ dently considered unfit for use in Reger’s music. Ibid. Other than those to Straube, the dedications of the Weiden organ works up to that time had gone to Richard Strauss (op. 29), Urania editor Alexander Wilhelm Gottschalg (op. 33), and Strassburg professor (also son of the Bach biographer Philipp Spitta and co-founder of the Reger-friendly Monatsschrift für Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst) Friedrich Spitta (op. 40/1). Reger’s dedication of the Sonata op. 33 to Gottschalg (which, by the way, does not appear on Straube’s performance autograph) evidences another early link to Saxon organ culture, particularly since Reger was careful to give Gottschalg’s title alongside his name: ‘Dedicated in venerable gratitude to Herr Prof. A. W. Gottschalg, Archducal-Saxon Court Organist’ [‘Herrn Prof. A. W. Gottschalg, grossherz. sächs. Hoforganisten, in verehrungsvoller Dankbarkeit gewidmet’]. Besides inclusion of such sentiments as ‘Dankbarkeit,’ ‘Verehrung,’ and ‘Hochachtung,’ Reger’s dedications are seldom as inflated as with op. 33. See Reger’s letter of recommendation for Straube of 25 June 1902, reproduced in Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 22; and the composer’s letter to Straube of 8 December 1902: ‘P. Gerhardt wrote me a card from which it seems that he is little edified by your appoint­ ment to St. Thomas. The tone of his card was so remarkably labored!’ [‘P. Gerhardt schrieb mir eine Karte, aus der hervorgeht, daß er über Deine Berufung an St. Thoma wenig erbaut ist; der Ton seiner Karte war so merkwürdig gequält!’] Ibid., 39. See Appendix 1. Both Hedmondt and Lindner were relative newcomers to the faculty (1901 and 1902 respectively), and neither was a product of the Leipzig Conservatory. ‘Als Studierender des Konservatoriums und zugleich Privatschüler und Vertrauter Straubes stand ich gleichsam zwischen den feindlichen Fronten, und es war oft nicht leicht, der hieraus sich ergebenden Schwierigkeiten und Spannungen Herr zu werden. Fast in jeder Stunde beim alten Professor Homeyer mußte ich dessen Sticheleien auf Straube anhören, und so manche Lektion erschöpfte sich in lebhaften Diskussionen über spieltechnische und Auffassungsfragen, deren Problematik er gamicht begriff. Der behäbig-wohlbeleibte, etwas schrullige, im Grunde aber gutmütige Sonderling vertrat noch ganz die alte Orgelschule, die lediglich auf ein technisch sauberes Manual- und Pedalspiel achtete, und er war alles andere als “cupidus rerum novarum.” Von der neueren Orgel 1iteratur ließ er zur Not gerade noch Liszt gelten, dessen Phantasie und

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 249 Fuge über B-A-C-H er mich erst nach langem Bitten in einem Vortragsabend spielen ließ, und gar Regers Orgelschaffen war ihm ein Gegenstand heftigsten Mißvergnügens. Von Bach kannte er nur die Orgelwerke, die er in einer Auswahlsammlung, mit Fingerund Fußsatz bezeichnet, herausgegeben hatte, aus der hohen Schule des Organisten, den Bachschen Choralvorspielen, verwandte er im Unterricht einzig und allein den kleinen Orgelchoral: “Herzlich tut mich verlangen.” So bot eine Homeyer-Stunde wenig Anre­ gung ... Ein ernstlicher Konflikt drohte zwischen uns, als es sich darum handelte, mein Examensstück für das öffentliche Prüfungskonzert auszuwählen. Homeyer wünschte Bachs große Phantasie und Fuge g-moll oder die Passacaglia, während ich durchaus ein Reger-Werk spielen wollte. Nach langen Verhandlungen, in die sich schließlich noch der verständnisvolle geschäftsführende Direktor des Konservatoriums, Justizrat Röntsch, zu meinen Gunsten einschaltete, ließ mich Homeyer knurrend gewähren. Und so erklang im Sommer 1906, nachdem sich der Orgelkomponist Reger anderwärts schon längst durch­ gesetzt hatte, endlich auch im Leipziger Konservatorium auf der alten mechanischen Konzertsaalorgel zum erstenmal ein Reger, seine Choralphantasie: “Wie schön leucht’ uns der Morgenstern” (op. 40 Nr. 1). Nach dem guten Gelingen und der Anerkennung, die das Konservatorium für seine “Fortschrittlichkeit” in der Öffentlichkeit erntete, war auch Homeyer zufrieden und sogar stolz darauf, daß einer seiner “Schüler” zum ersten Male Reger gespielt habe. Und Straube, bei dem ich natürlich das Stück insgeheim studi­ ert hatte, freute sich am meisten über diesen “frommen Betrug.”’ Stein, ‘Der Freund und Vorkämpfer Max Regers,’ 144-145. Homeyer’s Bach edition to which Stein refers is Johann Sebastian Bach, Orgelwerke, ed. Paul Homeyer, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Steingraber, 1875). The three volumes (edition nos. 64-66) contain preludes and fugues and other free works together with performance notes. See Appendix 6 for the specification of the ‘alte mechanische Konzertsaalorgel’ (E. F. Walcker Op. 491), and the end of the present chapter for further discussion about the Conservatory’s instruments. 36. As they are from Homeyer’s 1875 Bach edition. It may be worth noting, though, that Julius Reubke’s organ Sonata had been studied in Homeyer’s studio in the first years of the new century (partial performances in 1902 and 1903, complete performance in 1905), and that Liszt’s Prelude and Fugue on BACH, before Stein’s own performance of it on 17 November 1905, had appeared on Conservatory programs in 1901 and 1904, the latter instance demonstrably connected with Homeyer’s organ class. 37. Hartmann has rightly pointed out the problematic nature of Stein’s character in context of his influential position in Hitler’s government. Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 65-69. Stein was intimately acquainted with both Reger and Straube, and his writings about both men are informative on many counts, even though they must be carefully scrutinized against factual materials and the statements of others. 38 . Nothing is known of the attitudes of Homeyer’s colleague, the St. Nicholas organist Carl Heynsen, who was active at the Conservatory until well after Reger’s death. There are no recorded instances of Reger performances issuing from Heynsen*s class until 1913, when Emanuel Gatscher, who would later present a doctoral thesis entitled Max Regers Fugentechnik in ihrer Entwicklung (Stuttgart: Engelhom, 1925), undertook the only doc­ umented Conservatory performance of the difficult Variations and Fugue on an Original

250 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition Theme in F-sharp minor op. 73. See further Appendices 1 and 2 and, regarding Gatscher, note 88 below. 39 . Performance records do turn up occasional exceptions (e.g. performances of Lieder from the collections opp. 35 and 37), but op. 76 claims an unchallenged prominence. The attention paid to Reger’s songs on Conservatory programs probably had little to do with Straube, although the phenomenon mirrors his own high estimation of the Lieder as roughly equal in importance to the organ works. Cf. Chapter 2, note 4. 40. ‘In der als so arg rückständig verschrieenen Königlichen Hochschule für Musik zu Berlin hat man seinerzeit auf Joachims Anordnung in der Orchesterklasse meine Serenade Op. 95 gespielt; neuerdings spielt man da meine Hiller-Variationen für Orchester Op. 100 und Richard Strauß “Tod und Verklärung.” Auch an anderen Berliner Konservatorien pflegt man eifrigst meine Klaviersachen! Geschieht etwas Ähnliches hier an unserem Königlichen Konservatorium der Musik? Wann??’ Reger, Briefe eines deutschen Mei­ sters, 218. 41. The program sheets preserved in the Archive of the present-day Leipzig Hochschule do not give a full account of all recitals sponsored by the Conservatory. The records are particularly wanting during the war years 1914-18 and 1939 onwards. This makes impossible any kind of definite statement about the frequency of repertories at the Con­ servatory, but the observation that Reger’s non-organ music came relatively late to the institution still seems valid and significant. 42. The most dramatic example of the rejection of Reger based on the absolute, objective standards so typical of Orgelbewegung aesthetics is certainly Helmut Walcha, ‘Regers Orgelschaffen kritisch betrachtet,’ Musik und Kirche 22 (1952): 2-14. Apart from Straube’s problematic 1938 edition of op. 27 (see Chapter 3), one of the most intel­ ligent attempts to reconcile Reger’s music with quasi-classical organ design must be Anton Heiller’s magnificent phonograph recording of opp. 52/2,59/2 and 9, and 135b on the Marcussen instrument of Linz Cathedral in 1973. Max Reger, Œuvres pour orgue, Anton Heiller, Erato L’Encyclopédie de l’Orgue 44. Serious réévaluation of Reger’s organ music in terms of period instruments has received significant impetus in recent years by responsible restoration work carried out on important organs in Leipzig, Berlin, Riga, and other cities. 43. The most obvious example, of course, is the absolutely international interest in J. S. Bach, the development of which was well underway during Reger’s lifetime. Reger himself habitually enveloped his music in a pointedly Germanic rhetoric with obvious connections to the nationalism of the Wilhelmine Reich. By 1906, Albert Schweitzer had recognized in print that the French aesthetic rendered any performance of Reger’s organ works in France a virtual impossibility. See Schweitzer, Deutsche und franzö­ sische Orgelbaukunst und Orgelkunst, 1. 44. ‘Auch Sie wußten immer, daß das beste Erziehungsmittel das gute Beispiel ist. Und so waltete die gleiche Strenge wie in Ihrem Unterricht, so auch über Ihrer eigenen künstlerischen Tätigkeit als Organist, als Dirigent, als Bearbeiter der Bachkantaten und -Passionen, der Händeloratorien und vieler anderer Werke. Dieser hingebende, nie ruhende Dienst an der Kunst entspringt einer hohen idealistischen Auffassung von der

Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 251 sittlichen Macht und Aufgabe der Musik. Es ist die spezifisch germanische Anschauung, der die Musik nicht nur als eine schöne Zierde des menschlichen Daseins, niemals nur als geistreiches Spiel, sondern als eine gewaltige Lebensmacht gilt, die es mit dem ganzen Menschen zu tun hat, als Bildnerin des Geistes und der Seele, ffl] So darf Ihr Wirken beanspruchen, in seinen Absichten und in seinen Ausstrahlungen als Arbeit an der Seele des deutschen Volkes angesehen zu werden.’ Friedrich Högner, ‘An Karl Straube zum 60. Geburtstag,’ Zeitschriftfiir Musik, January 1933, 34. Emphasis is Högner’s. 45. ‘Mein lieber Ramino! Herzlichen Dank für die beiden Briefe, von Frau Charlotte und von Ihnen, die hier sehnlich erwartet wurden, denn Ihre Reise nach U.S.A. ist eine deutsche Angelegenheit, in ihrer Auswirkung viel folgenreicher als die Angelegenheiten unserer großen Pult-Primadonnen. Wir können Ihnen überhaupt nicht genug dafür danken, daß Sie der deutschen Kunst einen solchen Sieg errungen haben, dessen Endergebnisse um so tiefer gehen werden, als Sie nicht international sich geben wollten, auch nicht gege­ ben haben, sondern als ein deutscher Meister Ihre Kunst den Wollenden oder Nicht-Wol­ lenden darboten. Der Erfolg, der Ihnen mit Recht erblühte, ist ein Erfolg der deutschen Geistigkeit und für die Würde unserer geistigen Kultur haben Sie sich eingesetzt, sind ihr ein Vorkämpfer gewesen, wie wir nur wenige besitzen, für dies Alles kann Ihnen Deutschland nicht genug danken. Es handelt sich um nicht anderes, als um die Durch­ setzung der deutschen Superiorität auf englischen und französischen Einflußgebieten, daß Ihnen aber dieser Durchbruch gelungen, lediglich aus Ihrem Können und Ihrer Künstlerschaft heraus, das ist ein Erfolg, den hoch genug einzuschätzen, Worte kaum zu finden sind. Darüber freue ich mich mit Ihnen von ganzem Herzen, hoffe und wünsche nur das Eine, daß alle noch kommenden Konzerte sich diesem Siegeszuge würdig an­ reihen; alle Tücke des Objectes in, an und um Orgeln neutralisiert bleiben!! Dann wird das Ganze eine großartige Sache, die kein Mensch voraus geahnt hat, die aber auf ein Mal die deutsche Kunst auf einem Gebiete in den Vordergrund stellt, in einer Leistungs­ höhe zeigt, von der unsere westlichen Nachbaren auf dem europäischen Kontinent keine Ahnung gehabt haben. Ich sehe das Ganze, als einen der größten Erfolge Deutschland’s im internationalen Leben der Völker an, denn ich weiß genau, mit welcher Verachtung der deutsche Organist noch vor 20 Jahren im Ausland angesehen wurde, wenn darin eine Wandlung sich vollzieht, die Menschen draußen wissen, daß in Deutschland eine Nachfolge vorhanden, würdig der großen Tradition, so ist dies eine [sic] enormer Erfolg. Alles Gute, mein Lieber! Schonen Sie sich nach Möglichkeit, aber tun Sie dennoch als tapferer Soldat Ihre Pflicht bis zum Äußersten!—Ihnen und Frau Charlotte tausend herz­ liche Grüße in alter Treue Ihr Karl Straube.’ Karl Straube to Günther Ramin, autograph letter [photocopy] of 8 February 1933, private collection of Dr. Dieter Ramin. I am grateful to Dr. Ramin for his generosity in having supplied me with copies of this and other letters from Straube to his father. Portions of the text appear in Charlotte Ramin, Günther Ramin: Ein Lebensbericht (Freiburg i. Br.: Atlantis, 1958), 75-76; and Idem, Weggefährten im Geiste Johann Sebastian Bachs: Karl Straube - Günther Ramin, Zwei Thomaskantoren 1918-1956 (Darmstadt: Kuhsei, 1981), 47-48. 46. Straube entered the party in 1926. See further Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule; and Idem, Karl Straube: ein Altgardist der NSDAP; see also Chapter 1, note 35.

252 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition 47. See e.g. Reimann’s five-part essay ‘Orgel-Sonaten: Kritische Gänge* in Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 21 (1894); and his follow-up articles ‘Französische Orgelkomponisten’ of 26 June 1896, and ‘Bach und Liszt* of 30 July/7 August 1896; in which various nonGerman composers are assessed positively or negatively to the degree Reimann perceives them to ‘carry Bach in the heart’ [‘Bach ... im Herzen tragen’]. 48. °Es ist dies durchweg interessante, nie erlahmende Orgelmusik, wie sie heutzutage leider immer seltner [sic] geschrieben wird. Was mich so äußerst sympathisch berührt an Ihrem Werke, ist dessen urdeutsche Haltung, welche in diesem Falle (ich meine die Dedikation an Guilmant) noch höher einzuschätzen ist, als Sie trotz der Dedikation dem französischen Orgelstil “kein Kompliment” machen, sondern stets deutsch bleiben. Ich begrüße jede Orgelkomponistenerscheinung, die den Stempel des reinen, unverfälschten Deutschtums an sich trägt, mit besonderer Freude, da man leider nur zu oft sehen muß, wie deutsche Orgelkomponisten den französischen und englischen Stil nachäffen. Ich begrüße Sie daher mit besonders lebhafter Freude als einen derjenigen so wenigen, die berufen sind, die Fahne der echten “unverfälschten” Orgelkunst hochzuhalten. ffl] Was ich unter “Deutschtum” bei Orgelmusik verstehe, ist natürlich nicht Chauvinismus—ist ganz und gar unpolitisch; der Ausdruck Deutschtum ist für mich da eben nur “Gattungs­ begriff”; wir könnten ebensogut sagen “bachisch,” d.h. aus klassischem Geist geboren. Und nun: mir kann gewiß niemand im geringsten rückschrittliche Tendenzen vorwer­ fen, im Gegenteil; ich marschiere auf “linker Seite.” Allein was Orgelmusik betrifft, so kann ich da auf Grund tiefgehendster Studien nur sagen: “Jede Orgelmusik, die nicht im Innersten mit Bach verwandt ist, ist unmöglich.” Natürlich darf dieser Satz nicht pedan­ tisch verstanden und angewandt werden. Unsere französischen und englischen Orgel­ komponisten sind aber die reinsten “Antipoden” Bachs, und ich muß deren Orgelmusik durchaus ablehnen!* Reger, Briefe eines deutschen Meisters, 83-84. 49. Reger’s anti-Semitism is much more easily demonstrated than any racism on Straube’s part. See e.g. Reger’s letter to Straube of 31 May 1906, excerpted in note 9 above. 50. The issue has been most recently addressed by Walter Frisch in ‘Reger’s Bach and Historicist Modernism,* 19th Century Music 25 (Fall/Spring 2001-02; The Long Century 1780-1920): 296-312. Frisch’s concern lies mainly with how contemporary images of Bach impacted Reger’s composition, articulating what Frisch terms ‘historicist modern­ ism, incorporating music written in the years around 1900 that derives its compositional and aesthetic energy not primarily from an impulse to be New, but from a deep and sophisticated engagement with music of the past.’ Ibid., 296. Antonius Bittmann’s dis­ sertation Negotiating Past and Present: Max Reger and Fin-de-siècle Modernisms treats the Reger-Bach complex extensively while dealing with the plurality of ‘modernisms’ in which Reger’s image was and is couched. See especially his Part III (‘Bach-WagnerReger: Fin-de-siècle Modernist Notions of Progress’) and the treatment of Reger’s op. 46 offered there. 51. The German Orgelbewegung would later use this absolute idea of ‘wahre Orgelmusik’ based on Bach as the departure point for the ‘wahre Orgel* itself. It is, of course, one of the chief ironies of the Orgelbewegung that its basic philosophical principles were rooted in the very period which it sought to invalidate. At the time Reger was compos­

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 253 ing his music, though, the issue centered around compositional style, not organ building. Straube’s mentor Reimann, for example, maintained a strict separation between issues of composition and performance. For him, Bach’s music was superior not in conjunction with, but in spite of, the instruments of his time. See Reimann, ‘Ueber den Vortrag’; and Idem, ‘Noch einmal ueber den Vortrag.’ 52. ‘ ... der Verfasser [trägt] Bach zwar im Kopfe und in den Fingern, aber nicht im Herzen ... Das liegt aber an der nationalen Eigenart bezw. an der Entwickelung des Komponisten selbst, der sich den Bach’schen Styl nach seinem subjektiven Empfinden zurechtzulegen ernstlich bemüht war, ohne daß ihm jemals die Möglichkeit geboten war, Bach’schen Geist nach- und mitempfinden zu lernen. Widor daraus einen Vorwurf zu machen, wäre ebenso ungerecht als thöricht.’ Reimann, ‘Französische Orgelkomponisten,’ 361. Emphasis is Reimann’s. 53. ‘Ich glaube nicht, daß Pirros “dictionnaire de la langue de Bach” der Schlüssel zur Bachschen Kunst ist. Es ist vielmehr das Verlangen des französischen Geistes, die ihm nicht ganz faßbare geistige Individualität des großen protestantischen Thomaskantors durch “ratio” begreifen zu lernen. Die Etikettierung seiner Thematik sollte das Mittel zu einer völlig klaren Erkenntnis der mystischen Gestalt sein.’ Letter of 2 December 1944 to Wilibald Gurlitt, in Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 231. Straube’s long-lived pro­ clivity toward mysticism led him to reverse the more standard association: for him, mys­ ticism in Protestant guise opposed rationalism in Catholic guise, not the reverse. 54. Reimann’s evaluation of Widor was, for example, ultimately favorable: the Germans in fact ‘could all learn from the Frenchman Widor about serious artistry!’ [‘An künstlerischem Ernst könnten sie alle von dem Franzosen Widor lernen!’] Reimann, ‘Französische Orgelkomponisten,* 361. Emphasis is Reimann’s. Although Reger him­ self would refer to French and English music for ‘Bach’s instrument’ [‘dem Instrumente eines Bach’] as ‘often horrible’ [‘oft grauenhaft’], this did not imply outright rejection. See Reger’s letter to Hugo Riemann of 18 March 1899, a portion of which is reproduced in Popp, ed., Der junge Reger, 400-401. For a discussion of Reger’s not altogether unfa­ vorable reviews of French organ music, see Rudolf Stephan, ‘Regeriana I: Der junge Max Reger als Rezensent,* in Bachiana et alia Musicologica: Festschrift Alfred Dürr zum 65. Geburtstag am 3. März 1983, ed. Wolfgang Rehm (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1983), 287-292. Because of the strong traditional rhetoric around Reger’s ‘urdeutsche Haltung,’ the influence of French models on his own composition has never been systematically investigated. The first movement of the organ First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33, the opening bars of which Reger had intended to submit to the Golden Book of Art and Science for the Paris World Exhibition in 1900, is a good example of his assimilation of French style (in that case, a so-called French overture). Straube, whose performance and teaching repertory included Franck, Guilmant, and Widor, wrote to Günther Ramin during the latter’s tenure as St. Thomas organist, ‘I consider it very sensible namely that you develop close connections to the representatives of the art of French organ play­ ing.’ [‘Ich halte das nämlich für ganz gescheit, Sie bekommen nächste Beziehungen zu den Vertretern der französischen Orgelspielkunst.*] Karl Straube to Günther Ramin,

254 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

autograph letter [photocopy] undated, private collection of Dr. Dieter Ramin. Emphasis is Straube’s. ‘Diese Verbindung des Himmels mit der Erde gibt der Kunst Bachs jene Ruhe des Durchgeistigten ... wie sie kein anderer unter den großen Meistern deutscher Tonkunst in seinem Lebenswerk aufvveisen kann.* Letter of 24-25 June 1946 to Hans-Georg Gadamer, reproduced as ‘Ein Brief Karl Straubes über Johann Sebastian Bach* in Archiv für Musikwissenschaft (1957): 138-144. It seems likely that the distinction of mind vs. soul lies behind the old idea of ‘ability* (‘Können’) vs. ‘artistry’ (‘Künstlerschaft’) as well. The two latter concepts frequently appear together in statements of both Reger and Straube. Straube made the distinction, for instance, in his 1933 letter to Ramin above. One might consider, too, Reger’s oftquoted maxim: ‘Art comes from ability’ [‘Kunst kommt von Können*]. Milton addresses precisely the right relation between the two sides of ‘Geist’ to which much of Straube’s language directs itself: ‘ ... but to know / That which before us lies in daily life, / Is the prime wisdom; what is more, is fume, / Or emptiness, or fond impertinence ... ’ Paradise Lost 8. 193-195. Straube would characterize the rationalist movement as the ‘epoch of a limitless cult based on egocentrism’ [‘Zeitalter eines gren­ zenlosen Ich-Kultes’]. Straube, ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,’ 85. In 1943, he had writ­ ten former pupil and Danish composer Niels Otto Raasted that modem composition erred in using Romantic composers as stylistic models: ‘These masters, as lovable as they are in and of themselves, do not possess breadth of vision. They are all too ego­ centric.* [‘(D)iese Meister (haben), so liebenswert sie an sich sind, nicht die Weite der Schau, sie sind allzu ichbetont.’] Letter of 6 May 1943 in Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 161. ‘Augenblicklich studiere ich im Bach-Verein Brahms’ “Deutsches Requiem.” Sicherlich ein edles, schönes Kunstwerk, aber dennoch, wie wenig ursprünglich ist dieses ganze seelische Fühlen und Denken über Tod und Jenseits innerlich neugeboren worden. Brahms ist ein gebildeter Mensch, der nie den Mut zu den Ursprüngen und Quellen des Lebens hat. Er ist überall gehemmt durch kulturelle Erbschaften, die seinen Geist be­ dingten und in seiner Kraft hemmten. Die ganze Kunst dieses Mannes, so schön sie rein musikalisch ist, wirkt auf mich nie anders als sekundär. Es ist keine Unmittelbarkeit in diesem Wesen, und deshalb fehlt dieser Musik das Befreiende und Hochftihrende. Diese Art von Geistigkeit können wir alle erleben, es ist nichts, was über uns steht, was wir anbeten müssen.’ Letter of 5 January 1917 to Erwin Zillinger. Ibid., 32. Straube’s opinion had not changed by the end of his career, when he formulated the following remark: ‘The noble soul [of Brahms] looked longingly backwards to the riches and security of a piety like that of Johann Sebastian Bach, but his spirit [‘Geist’] no longer had the strength to undertake the risk of a leap into the extraordinary. But we all suffer from this.’ [‘Die edle Seele sehnte sich zurück nach dem Reichtum und der Sicherheit einer Frömmigkeit wie der von Johann Sebastian Bach, aber sein Geist hatte nicht mehr die Kraft, das Wagnis des Sprunges in das Außerordentliche zu unternehmen. Aber daran leiden wir alle.’] Letter of 20 May 1941 to Johannes Haller. Ibid., 128. ‘Mendelssohn war es ..., der späterhin durch Veröffentlichung seiner sechs Orgelsonaten

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 255

60.

61. 62.

63.

64.

auf dem Gebiete der Orgelkomposition anregend und fördernd im größten Maße gewirkt hat. Schmälern wir dieses, historisch betrachtet, unbestreitbar große Verdienst nicht, aber seien wir auch ehrlich genug, einsehen zu wollen, daß diese Sonaten für uns, die wir Bach kennen, keineswegs vollkommene, fehlerlose Kunstwerke sein können. Wollen wir auch von dem durch Klavierstil beeinflußten Orgelsatz absehen, so muß doch die Behand­ lung der Choräle unsere schweren Bedenken erregen!... Wir erkennen den Fehler Men­ delssohns. Ihm ist der Choral ein rein formalistisches Element, welches er ohne innere Nötigung, aus gewissermaßen äußerlich-musikalischen Gründen anwendet.’ Straube, review of Zwei Phantasien fiir Orgel op. 40, by Max Reger, 210-211. A thoroughgoing examination of Straube’s attitude toward the nineteenth century, both philosophically and musically, does not yet exist but would be highly desirable. Even though such an undertaking lies beyond the scope of the present study, it should be remarked that Straube’s aesthetic, based as it was upon the principles of Bachian logic and the ‘Ernst* o f ‘classical’ German Protestantism, was nevertheless more accommodat­ ing to non-German, Catholic composers (e.g. the Belgian Franck, the Hungarian Liszt, and the Frenchman Widor) than to the Germans Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, and Rheinberger. ‘auf Wunsch wiederholt’. Program sheet of Motette at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig, 30 January 1909, Archiv ev. Thomas-Matthäi-Gemeinde Leipzig. ‘Sein Eintreten fur die Orgelwerke Mendelssohns und Rheinbeigers, die manche gerade noch als Übungsstücke gelten lassen möchten, sei ihm besonders dankbar angemerkt.’ Max Unger, review of Günther Ramin at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 18 December 1919, Neue Zeitschrift fur Musik, 25 December 1919, 333. ‘Mit dem gesunden Instinkte des großen Talentes sucht Reger die Tradition mit der ausgesprochen deutschen Kunstart, wie Bach in seinen Werken sie niedergelegt hat, aufzunehmen. Unbekümmert um einen Tageserfolg schafft er im Geiste dieses großen Mannes. Sein Erbe fuhrt er weiter, baut es aus, nicht im Formalen, songem [sic] im Geis­ tigen! Er treibt weder musikalische Historie, noch tönende Philologie! Aus den Werken Regers spricht zugleich der moderne Geist mit der unendlichen Variabilität seines Empflndungslebens. Reger scheint eine jener seltenen künstlerischen Erscheinungen zu sein, welche Kulturelemente vergangener Zeiten unbewußt in sich tragen und diese, unter dem Einflüsse der Gegenwartsfragen und -Anschauungen, in künstlerischer Form zu neuem Leben erwecken.’ Straube, ‘Max Reger7 Die Gesellschaft 18 (1902): 180-181. ‘ ... hier [sind] die schwierigsten Formen allein als Mittel zum Ausdruck, nicht als Selbst­ zweck angewandt. Nicht der ‘Tonsetzer,’ sondern der Stimmungskünstler in Reger zwingt zur Bewunderung. Das psychische Empfinden, das in diesen Tönen zum Aus­ klang kommt, ist freilich für unsere Tage so unzeitgemäss, als eben möglich. Ein Re­ venant aus jener Zeit, da nach den Greueln des 30jährigen Krieges unser Volk das Lachen verlernte, spricht in einer schwermütig lastenden Sprache zu uns ... Die Erfüllung des Daseins kann ein solcher Geist in diesem Leben nicht erblicken. Ein Jenseits voll seli­ ger Freude, wie es Christi Kirche verspricht, gibt den Bedrängten dieser Erde him­ mlischen Ersatz ... Reger übergibt den deutschen Organisten mit dieser Sammlung ein Choralwerk, wie es seit dem Jahrhundert Johann Pachelbels, seit dem Wirken Joh. Seb.

256 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

65.

66.

67. 68.

69. 70.

Bachs nicht wieder geschrieben worden ist. Trotz Brahms!—Die “Elf Choral Vorspiele” in hohen Ehren,—jedoch es sind religiöse Studien eines Weltkindes ... ’ Karl Straube, review of Monologe op. 63, ZwölfStücke op. 65, Zweiundfünfzig leicht ausführbare Vor­ spiele op. 67, and Zehn Stücke op. 69, by Max Reger, in Die Musik 3 (1903/04): 131. Straube included in his Alte Meister three works by Johann Pachelbel and one by J. S. Bach. Nearly half of the volume (six of fourteen pieces) comprises chorale-based works. In both the 1902 essay and the 1903 review, Straube went out of his way to discuss the shortcomings of Brahms’ music versus Reger’s. This probably reflects the appear­ ance in 1902 of Brahms’ posthumous op. 122, but the instance of Brahms also offered Straube (he believed) a clear philosophical contrast to Reger. Neither Hugo Riemann, who regarded Brahms as the future of music, nor his pupil Reger might have taken such a negative stance, especially as early as 1902. ‘Dem jungen Meister Max Reger zu eigen.* Alte Meister des Orgelspiels is still avail­ able from C. F. Peters as EP No. 3065, unfortunately without the original beautifully engraved title page. The modem print retains, however, Straube’s dedication. Reger thanked Straube for the dedication in a letter of 11 September 1904: ‘In this volume I have ... seen again ... how all our modem bunk fizzles out in comparison to this abso­ lutely Germanic force (even in its graciousness)... ’ [‘Ich hab*... mal in diesem Bande mal wieder gesehen ... .wie gegen diese urgermanische Kraft (selbst in der Grazie) all unser heutiger moderner Schwindel verpufft ... ’] Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube, 66-67. Concerning his attitude to the ‘old masters,* see also Reger’s letter of 25 June 1904 in Ibid., 57-59. ‘ ... eine Vorschule zu den gleichartigen Schöpfungen von Johann Sebastian Bach ... ’ Karl Straube, ed., Choralvorspiele alter Meister (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1907), 2. ‘Sie wird dartun, daß alle Formen dieser Kunstgattung, wie sie Bach späterhin ange­ wandt hat, schon im Verlauf des XVII. Jahrhunderts gefunden und ausgebildet worden sind, daß aber trotz alledem durch die ungeheuerliche Steigerung und Vertiefung des seelischen Inhaltes das Schaffen des gewaltigen Genius einzig ist und sein Werden ungeachtet aller historischen Erkenntnisse unerklärbar und rätselhaft bleibt. Keiner der Vorläufer kann einen Vergleich mit dem Unvergleichlichen aushalten. Wird aber bei der Betrachtung der Werke unserer “Alten Meister” von solchem übermenschlichen Maße des Messens abgesehen, so bleibt der deutschen Orgelkunst des XVII. Jahrhunderts immerhin der Ruhm, in ihrer Gesamtheit eine klassische Zeit der Choralbearbeitung darzustellen. Was dagegen nach J. S. Bach auf diesem Arbeitsgebiet hervorgebracht worden ist, gehört den Niederungen der deutschen Kunstkultur an. Davon zeugen auch die sechs Choralbearbeitungen dieser Sammlung, welche der Schaffenszeit nach 1750 zuzuzählen sind. Erst um die Wende des XIX. Jahrhunderts hat Max Reger in seinen Choralwerken der deutschen Tonkunst Denkmäler gesetzt, die den Schöpfungen der ver­ gangenen Epochen gleichwertig sind und berufen sein dürften, wie jene die Zeiten zu überdauern, [f] Leider hat die deutsche Organistenwelt eine besondere Vorliebe für die Erzeugnisse aus den Zeiten des Niederganges gezeigt... ’ Ibid. Reger, Briefe eines deutschen Meisters, 84. ‘Denn das ist ja das Kennzeichnende an Regers Persönlichkeit und Kunst: immer sah

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 257

71.

72.

73. 74. 75.

76.

er das eigentlich Wertvolle in den übersinnlichen, geistigen Dingen. Die großen Werte seines Lebens waren mit den religiösen eng verbunden. Weil dem so war, deshalb, glaube ich, wird Regers Kunst noch lange leben, wenn vieles, was heute bewundert und geschätzt wird, zurückgegangen ist in die Vergessenheit. Nur die in Ewigkeitswerten verankerte Kunst trägt in sich die Gewähr der Dauer.* Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 27. ‘Max Reger ... hat ... unter den Einflüssen einer ihm fremden Umwelt gelitten. Daher ringt er mit den Problemen, kommt zu keinen Abschlüssen; daher das Problematische in seiner dennoch so reichen Künstlernatur. Erst in den letzten Werken mit ihrer weh­ mutsvollen Entsagung kommt Reger zu einem gewissen resignierenden Abschluß mit dieser Welt.* Ibid., 31. Cf. Chapter 3, note 25. Straube expanded on the idea of compos­ ers who either merely proceed from their environment or achieve some kind of higher synthesis with it and their own personalities. In this latter category he included Bach, Handel, Mozart, Bruckner, and, to a certain extent, Reger. ‘All others are conditioned by foreign elements, with which they came to grips without ever having arrived at a pure separation from them.’ [‘Alle anderen sind bedingt von Außenstehendem, mit dem sie sich auseinandersetzen, ohne zu einer reinlichen Scheidung zu kommen.’] Ibid. ‘Zu allen Zeiten, in allen Klängen das tönende Sehnen einer weitabgewandten, in sich versonnenen Seele, die nur im Kampf mit den Dingen dieser Welt sich abfinden konnte. Eine tiefe Schwermut, geboren aus dem Widerstreit des eigenen Fühlens und den Tatsächlichkeiten irdischen Ablaufes erfüllt schmerzdurchbebt die Musik Max Regers ... [D]ie Möglichkeiten seines Lebens, das Wünschen und Wollen der eigenen Seele und die Gegebenheiten der ihn umkreisenden Welt, immer bleiben sie dissonant; zu einer Vollkommenheit seines Lebenswillens in harmonischer Durchbildung konnte er niemals gelangen, [f] Nur dann kommt Regers inneres Erleben zur Ruhe, wenn es sich der Gefühlswelt metaphysischer Versenktheit zuwendet. Er war in tiefem Sinne eine durch­ aus religiöse Natur, einem fast kindlichen Glauben zugewandt und in solchem seiner selbst gewiß und sicher. Dieser Grundsatz seines Wesens stand in stärkstem Widerspruch zu einer Zeit, die in den Zielen ihres Wollens durchaus irreligiös eingestellt war ... fl[] In den Kämpfen und Schmerzen dieses leidenschaftlichen Geistes findet die Jugend unsrer Tage den bewegenden Ausdruck der eigenen Not, aber darin vor allem bleibt Reger leuchtendes Vorbild, daß er in demutsvollem Neigen, in einem überpersönlichen mystischen Erschauen die einzige Rettung aus dem Wirrnis kampferfüllter Schicksals­ wege zu finden Glauben und Hoffnung hatte.’ Karl Straube, ‘Max Reger,’ in Mitteilungen der Max Reger-Gesellschaft 4 (November 1924): 1-2. Straube, Max Reger: Werden und Vollendung, copyright p. The text also appeared in the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, 10 May 1941. ‘Vor einem Menschenalter etw a... ’ Straube, Max Reger: Werden und Vollendung, 3. ‘ ... die Fülle der geistigen und sozialen Strömungen des 19. Jahrhunderts führte, als Folge der ungehemmten Zielsetzungen in der Verschiedenheit des Strebens nach neuer Lebensform, zwangsläufig auch auf künsterlischen Gebieten zu einer Zersetzung des bis dahin im wesentlichen einheitlichen Denkens und Wollens.* Ibid., 4. ‘ ... Aufspaltung der deutschen Wesensart... ’ Ibid., 5. It hardly need be said that it was

258 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

77. 78.

79. 80.

81.

82.

precisely this ‘splintering* which Hitler’s idealistic unification of the nation addressed, rallying the German people under the banner o f ‘Reinheit’ and tradition. Given Straube’s own view of intellectual history, it should be no surprise that he embraced the party’s ideology early on. ‘Das Deutsche seiner Kunst, die Weite seiner geistigen Bildung, die Unbestechlichkeit seines Urteils ... ’ Ibid., 6. ‘Neben den wissenschaftlichen Fächern ehrbare Tüchtigkeit im Leben, Pflichttreue und Gewissenhaftigkeit bis zum letzten in jeglicher Arbeit, Wohlwollen und Güte fur seine Mitmenschen, dienende Liebe zu den Eltern und endlich Ehrfurcht vor der Kirche und Gehorsam dem Staat. Es sind die sittlichen Forderungen einer ständischen Ordnung, die bis zur Jahrhundertwende dem Leben vieler deutscher Kleinstädte Inhalt und Form gaben. Die Problematik des modernen Lebens, ausgehend von der Großen Revolution in Frankreich, gesteigert durch die industrielle und kapitalistische Umwälzung des 19. Jahr­ hunderts, im staatlichen und politischen Leben neue Gestaltungen gebieterisch fordernd, hatte im wogenden Treiben der Zeit diese Zeugen einer friedreichen und stillen Vergan­ genheit noch nicht berührt. fl[] Der große Einfluß dieser in der Überlieferung verharren­ den Lebensform auf Max Reger kann nicht bezweifelt werden.’ Ibid., 7-8. ‘ ... dem Weltleben so fernes Wesen ... ’ Ibid., 11. In addition to Strauss and Pfitzner, Straube included in his 1941 discussion the names of Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner (and, in connection with Pfitzner, Shakespeare and Schopen­ hauer), and the ‘Wiener Klassik.’ ‘Die Beziehungen von Max Reger zu dem großen Thomaskantor sind nicht so eng, wie man anzunehmen geneigt ist. Reger kommt von späten Beethoven, den Romantikern und Johannes Brahms. Von Bach war ihm vertraut das Wohltemperierte Klavier und die Orgelwerke, die ihm sein erster Verleger Augener in der Ausgabe des Engländers W. T. Best geschenkt hat. Die Suiten und “Brandenburgischen” kannte er gar nicht. Ich war es, der die Bekanntschaft vermittelte, indem ich C. F. Peters veranlaßte, Reger mit der Herstellung von vierhändigen Klavierauszügen dieser Werke zu betrauen. Von den Kla­ vierkonzerten war es Philipp Wolfrum, der der Mittler war. Wie Hans von Bülow, so kannte auch der jüngere Meister nur sehr wenig vom Kantatenwerk, und er besaß nicht einmal die Partituren der Matthäuspassion und der Hohen Messe.’ Letter of 3 March 1944. Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 175-176. Reger’s own outspoken opinion of Bach was, of course, another reason. From Adalbert Lindner, it is reasonably clear that Das Wohltemperierte Klavier indeed constituted a centerpiece of Reger’s study with Hugo Riemann, but it is difficult to accept Straube’s claim that Reger was familiar with so little of Bach’s work after his harmonic and contra­ puntal studies. See Lindner, Max Reger: ein Bild seines Jugendlebens, 64 ff. In any case, it is Reger’s connection with Bach which has proven its durability to the present day, so that, for example, Walter Frisch could assert in 1998 that ‘There seems little question that quantitatively Reger had the greatest involvement with Bach of any composer since Bach himself.* Walter Frisch, ‘Bach, Brahms, and the Emergence of Musical Modern­ ism,* in Bach Perspectives 3: Creative Responses to Bach from Mozart to Hindemith (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998), 123.

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 259 83. ‘Wie ich offen gestehen muß, bedeutet mir der Klang einer Sauerorgel heute nichts mehr ... ’ Letter of 29 November 1946 to Fritz Stein. Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskan­ tors, 215. 84. ‘Doch auch die Willibrordi-Kirche, die schöne Sauer-Orgel dieses Gotteshauses, ja fast die ganze Stadt Wesel sind nicht mehr.’ Letter of 22 September 1948 to Walter Kunze. Ibid., 238. For further discussion of this apparent contradiction, see Chapter 3. 85. To offer but two examples here: Straube’s clever remark to Karl Hasse in 1909 on Reger’s egocentric garrulousness (‘We will not soon cure Reger of his chatter-itis.’) [‘Regers Rederitis werden wir ihm so bald nicht abgewöhnen.*], letter of 21 February 1909, Ibid., 20; and to Oskar Söhngen in 1946 (‘Reger could not do enough in the broad public spectrum to betray his actual essence through off-color jokes and bragging.*) [‘Reger ... [konnte] in der weiten Öffentlichkeit sich nicht genug darin tun ..., seine eigentliche Wesensart durch zweifelhafte Witze und Renommistereien zu vergeben.*], letter of 15 November 1946, Ibid., 212. 86. Cf. notes 78 and 21 respectively. 87. Rezik appears in Conservatory records as having studied from 1909-1911 (inscription no. 10 519), but his performance of Reger’s op. 46 early in 1908 indicates of necessity his association with the institution virtually from the time of Straube*s employment in late 1907. Johannes Wolgast does not include him in his own list of Straube pupils from 1928 (Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung), a regrettable omission given the appar­ ent fact that Rezik was the first product of Straube’s studio to perform officially on a Conservatory program. 88. There is no evidence of any performance of the Symphonic Fantasy and Fugue op. 57 by a Conservatory student, although the St. Nicholas organist Karl Hoyer performed it on a Conservatory-sponsored recital at St. Nicolas Church on 27 September 1926. Opp. 73 and 127 received single performances at the Conservatory on 25 April 1913 and 27 Feb­ ruary 1931 respectively. Interestingly enough, the one performance of the Variations and Fugue on an Original Theme in F-sharp minor op. 73, perhaps Reger’s most demanding organ work, is owed to Emanuel Gatscher, who later earned a Ph.D. (Univ. of Bonn) for his enduring study of Reger’s fugai technique (Gatscher, Die Fugentechnik Max Regers in ihrer Entwicklung). Gatscher issued not from Straube’s studio, but rather from that of the St. Nicolas organist Carl Heynsen. Wolgast cited Gatscher as a 1923 pupil of Straube, as does the anonymous author (Gurlitt?) of a short article ‘Gatscher’ in Riemann Musik Lexikon 12th ed, but records at the Leipzig Hochschule do not support that claim. See Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 52; and ‘Gatscher,’ in Riemann Musik Lexicon, 12th ed., ed. Wilibald Gurlitt, vol. 1 (Mainz: Schott, 1959), 591. Gatscher is a prominent early example of how an important advocate for Reger’s music arose as a product of the Leipzig Conservatory but outside the Straube circle. It is interesting, too, that all recorded performances of the late works opp. 127 and 135b occurred in the 1930s (op. 135b on 11 March 1932, 13 March 1936, and 29 October 1937). 89. ‘ ... ein besonderes Anliegen meines Lehrers ... ’ Wunderlich, ‘Karl Straubes Vortragsbe­ zeichnungen,’ 64. Wunderlich studied op. 57 after his exams in 1940.

260 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition 90. ‘Ich habe das Stück mit einem meiner Schüler, Goering aus Eisleben, vor mehreren Jahren studiert... ’ Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 173. 91. Rüger, ‘Prof. Dr. Karl Straube: Schülerliste, 1995.* 92. R. Jähnig, ‘Zu den Reifeprüfungen am kirchenmusikalischen Institut der evangelischen lutherischen Landeskirche am Konservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig,* Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker, 15 August 1927, 75-77. Besides the requirements for organ perfor­ mance and analysis cited above, Jähnig includes categories for dictation, thoroughbass, choral and orchestral direction, instrumentation, score reading, music history, vocal tech­ nique, liturgical organ playing (including improvisation), organ building, and piano per­ formance. 93. ‘Virtuoses Orgelspielen flir Nebenamtliche. [T] J. S. Bach, Orgelbüchlein: “Wir Chris­ tenleut.” Reger: Choral Vorspiel: “Ein feste Burg.” J. S. Bach: Passacaglia in C-Moll. Reger: Passacaglia in F-Moll Op. 63. Begleitung eines Chorals (Hoyer: Weihnachtsge­ sang). Begleitung der Arie von J. S. Bach aus dem Weihnachtsoratorium “Schlafe, mein Jesu.” Die anderen Nebenamtlichen erhalten ähnliche Aufgaben. [f] Vom Blatt spielen einer Liedbegleitung: J. S. Bach, Schemellisches Gesangbuch “O, Jesulein süß.” Ibid., 76. 94. ‘Virtuoses Orgelspiel: Hauptamtliche. [f] Choräle aus dem Bachschen Orgelbüchlein. 1. Herr Gott, nun schleuß den Himmel auf. 2. Vom Himmel kam der Engel Schar. 3. Das alte Jahr vergangen ist. 4. Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt. [K] Alte Meister nach eigener Wahl: 1. Buxtehude, Präludium und Fuge in G-Moll. 2. J. S. Bach, Phan­ tasie und Fuge in G-Moll. 3. Bruhns, Präludium und Fuge in E-Moll. 4. Lübeck, Fuge in E-Moll. 5. J. S. Bach, Präludium und Fuge in H-Moll (Nr. 3 bis 5 nach Wahl der Prüfungskommission). [f| Moderne Meister nach eigener Wahl: Reger, Sonate in D-Moll Op. 60. [K] Vom-Blattspiel: Reimann, Präludium und Fuge in D-Moll Op. 31. [10 Selbst­ ständig ausgearbeitet: 1. Vincent Lübeck, Präludium und Fuge in C-Moll. 2. Rasted, Sonate Nr. 1 in C-Moll. [10 Die übrigen Hauptamtlichen erledigen ähnliche Aufgaben.’ Ibid., 77. It is unclear in this instance what is meant by ‘nach eigener Wahl,’ particularly in the category of ‘modem masters* where there is no alternative to Reger’s op. 60. 95. ‘Analysieren: Buxtehude, Präludien, Fuge G-Moll. Entwickeln des Begriffs Substanz­ gemeinschaft aus dem Organischen. Phantasie über den Choral “Halleluja, Gott zu loben” von Reger, Op. 52, 3. Feststellen des Variationsprinzips. Karg-Elert, Phantasie, Kanzone, Tokkata, Fuge Op. 85,2.’ Ibid., 75. 96. ‘Beginn von Wintersemester 1929/30 bis Schluß von Sommersemester 1930 (Mitte Juni).’ Studienbericht for George O. Lillich, Archive Hochschule fur Musik und Theater ‘Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy’ Leipzig. Lillich’s inscription number was 16 379. Unfor­ tunately, Straube did not comment on the quality of Lillich’s work at Leipzig. A remark, entered in the Studienbericht on 30 December 1932 by an unknown hand, notes that ‘HenProf. Straube has no time to write reports’ [‘Hen Prof. Straube findet keine Zeit Zeug­ nisse zu schreiben*]. Ibid. See my ‘Die Regemoten des amerikanischen Straube-Schülers George Lillich: Zur Regerpädagogik der Straube-Schule 1929-1930,* in Musikalische Moderne und Tradition: Internationaler Reger-Kongress Karlsruhe 1998 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf, 2000), 345-364.

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 261 97. ‘Um uns Schüler nicht nur zur technischen Beherrschung, sondern auch zur geistigen Durchdringung und gestalteten Darstellung der Orgelwerke zu befähigen, bediente sich Straube seines berühmten “Lehrgangs,” den jeder lückenlos durchzuarbeiten hatte. Er begann mit dem “Orgelbüchlein” (Peters Bd. V) in festgelegter Reihenfolge. “Wer das beherrscht, kann eigentlich alles spielen,” pflegte er zu sagen, “es enthält die gesamte Orgeltechnik in nuce.” Allerdings verlangte er jedes Stück fehlerlos, und meist wurde ein ganzes Studienjahr ausschließlich für das Orgelbüchlein verwendet. Es folgte der IV. Band mit Corellifuge, Canzone, g-moll-Fuge, Legrenzifuge c-moll, d-moll-Tokkata, G-dur-Fantasie. Weiter aus Band III die Geigenfuge d-moll, Präludium und Fuge g-moll, Fantasie und Fuge c-moll, Dorische Tokkata und Fuge, F-dur-Tokkata und Doppelfuge; danach aus Bd. II C-dur, f-moll, a-moll, h-moll sowie Es-dur aus dem III. Bd. Zuletzt kamen die Passacaglia und die Triosonaten dran. Dieser wohldurchdachte Aufbau der Bachwerke, von den kleinen über die mittleren zu den großen, führte zu überlegener Sicherheit sowohl im Technischen wie im Geistig-Künstlerischen. Keinem wurde ein Stück erlassen, nichts durfte übersprungen werden ... ffl] Nach Bach ließ er uns Buxte­ hude studieren, dann Franz Liszt (B-A-C-H Fantasie und die Variationen über “Weinen, Klagen”) und anschließend Reger.* Erwin Zillinger, ‘Das Vermächtnis des Orgelmei­ sters Karl Straube,’ Der Kirchenmusiker 11 (March-April 1960): 51-52. Wolgast cites Zillinger’s study period as 1913-1916. Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 46. 98. ‘Einer Methode im üblichen Sinne hat Straube sich nicht verschrieben, sondern mit feinem Spürsinn geht er auf die Eigenart jedes einzelnen Schülers ein und legt seine Lehrweise auf jeden Einzelfall hin besonders an.’ Günther Ramin, ‘Karl Straube, der Pädagoge,* in Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, 22. 99. ‘ ... im BinnenVerhältnis Straube: Schüler herrschte (wie es altpreußischen Normvorstel­ lungen entsprach) eine eiserne Hierarchie, deren Ordnung hier und da zwar modifiziert wurde, die aber im übrigen dem Schema der zu erarbeitenden Orgel-Literatur folgte: “Der Reimann” als Vorstufe, dann Bach-“Band V” (Peters), “Band IV” und “Band III” mit den Stücken von mittlerer Schwierigkeit. In dieser Phase begannen die indivi­ duellen Varianten mit Werken sogenannter “Alter Meister,” evtl, mit einem Vorstoß in die Gefilde des Wagnisses, also etwa César Franck, Choral a-Moll, Reger-Kyrie/Gloria/ Benedictus und Ähnlichem. Dann folgte, auf früh-meisterlicher Ebene (des Schülers wohlgemerkt): “Band II” (auch dieser in einer ungeschriebenen Binnenordnung und Abfolge) und zuletzt “großer Reger,” vom “Morgenstern” etwa bis zum “B-A-C-H,” der d-Moll Sonate und Ähnlichem. fl[] Das Eigenartige dabei war, daß diesem sachlichen Aufbau des musikalischen Repertoires das Rollenverhalten der Straubianer gleichsam wörtlich entsprach und von den jeweils jüngeren Semestern in einer Art und Weise akz­ eptiert wurde, die heute, nach zwei Revolutionen und dem Weltkrieg II, nicht einmal als Märchen glaubwürdig wiederzugeben ist. Man streift die übertreibende Groteske nur leicht mit der Aussage: nie hätte sich ein Zweiter Band (d.h. das dazugehörige Jung­ männlein) so weit erniedrigt, ein Jungfräulein aus Band V zu beachten, geschweige bei Gelegenheit mit ihr zu tanzen oder sich gar in sie zu verlieben. Hätte ein “Alter Meister” einen “Regerer” etwa zum Bier eingeladen, so wäre das noch wochenlang in der Chronique scandaleuse des K.I. kolportiert worden; soweit wenigstens ich mich

262 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition erinnern kann, sind solche Exzesse auch nicht vorgekommen.’ Piersig, ‘So ging es allenfalls,’ 114. 100. “‘Paß nur auf,” so sagten sie zu mir, “jeden, der von einem anderen Institut zu ihm kommt, läßt er immer wieder ganz von vorne anfangen.” Das war recht entmutigend. Dazu erzählten sie mir (was richtig war), daß er mit Schülern, die als Anfänger zu ihm kamen, in den ersten zwei Jahren sehr streng war, vor allem in technischen Dingen, und daß er in dieser Zeit selbst bestimmte, welche Stücke sie spielen sollten, in einer ziem­ lich festliegenden Folge, dieselben Stücke bei jedem Schüler. Der große Moment aber kam dann, wenn er—gegen Ende des zweiten Jahres, manchmal früher, manchmal auch später—zu dem Schüler sagte: “Was wollen Sie denn nun studieren?”, ihm also jetzt die Wahl freistellte. Das galt als eine Art “Gesellenprüfung,” eine Beförderung vom Lehrling zum Gesellen. Erst dann gehörte man wirklich zur Gruppe des “inneren Kreises.” ffl] Mit diesen Dingen auf dem Herzen spielte ich Straube vor; es war Bachs F-dur-Toccata. Alle seine Schüler standen um den Spieltisch herum, kritisch; alle wollten Zeugen sein. Als ich geendet hatte, sagte er nur; “Sie haben einen guten Lehrer gehabt. Mit welchem Stück wollen Sie bei mir anfangen?”’ Heinrich Fleischer, ‘Weimar und Leipzig, Michael Schneider und Karl Straube: Persönliche Erinnerungen,* in Orgel, Orgelmusik und Orgel­ spiel: Festschrift Michael Schneider zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Christoph Wolff (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1985), 180. Cf. Kathryn Schenk, Heinrich Fleischer: The Organist’s Calling and the Straube Tradition for further insight into the Straube studio during the 1930s. 101. ‘Die allererste Stunde bei ihm war gänzlich unspektakulär: ich hatte drei Zeilen einer Fuge (Corelli-Fuge) an einer Umwendestelle mit etwa 10 Regieanwesungen [sic] (Re­ gisterwechsel mit Händen und Füßen, Notenwenden, Spiel mit einer Hand auf zwei Manualen usw.) zu tränieren. Nachdem ich das absolviert hatte, kannte ich sowohl die Orgel als auch meine Hände und Füße (ich konnte auch schon vorher Orgel spielen!) und hatte die Dispositionsgrenzen meines Gehirns getestet. Als nächstens eine Reihe von Chorälen aus dem “Orgelbüchlein,” dann Präludien und Fugen aus dem 2. umd [sic] 3. Band Peters. Alles mit einer streng fixierten Terminierung: länger als 14 Tage durfte an einem der großen Bachwerke nicht gearbeitet werden. Ein einziges Mal erlaubte er mir noch eine Woche mehr. Nach etwa drei großen Bächen kam Regers “Morgenstern” und weitere große Reger-Werke. Ein dritter starker Posten waren die damals tintenfrisch komponierten Werke von J. N. David, die frühe f-moll-Toccata, die Chaconne und meh­ rere kleinere Werke. Straube und David hatten einen engen persönlichen, vor allem phi­ losophischen Kontakt und so wie Straube früher Reger populär gemacht hatte durch sein Orgelspiel, so machte er jetzt David populär durch seine Schüler.’Autograph letter of 25 September 1996 to the author. 102. ‘Straubes Lehrplan ist mir nicht präzis mehr im Gedächtnis, weil ich damals noch sehr jung war & vieles nicht bemerkt habe. Natürlich begann der Unterricht mit dem “Orgelbüchlein,” dann folgten einige “alte Meister,” etwa Pachelbel, Buxtehude, Lübeck ua ... Die Romantik & Reger kamen später, nachdem der Schüler auch einige große “Bäche” (2. Band, 3. Bach) absolviert hatte. Also eigentlich erst ziemlich spät, sodaß sich das technische Fundament einigermaßen stabilisiert hatte. Er fing an mit einigen Stücken aus op. 59 (wenn ich mich richtig erinnere: “Benedictus” ua.). Straube lehrte

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 263 aber auch die Musik von Kurt Thomas, Karl Hoyer & dann Johann Nepomuk David. Er war der Moderne gegenüber sehr aufgeschlossen. Das hat er ja schon bewiesen in seinem Einsatz für Max Reger.’ Autograph letter of 15 September 1996 to the author. 103. ‘Bach und dann Reger ... .waren Eckpfeiler der Programme des Organisten gewesen.* Hans Böhm, ‘Karl Straube—Ein Gedenkblatt zu seinem 20. Todestage,* Musica 24 (1970): 173. 104. ‘Hier ließ er als Leiter der Orgelklassen eine Methodik walten, die er später... im Bereich des... Kirchenmusikalischen Institutes am “Kon” auf eine geradezu als Studium generale zu nennende Grundlage stellen konnte.’ Eberhard Otto, ‘In Memoriam Karl Straube,* Musica 17 (1963): 86. 105. Piersig’s essay is the only less-than-positive assessment of Straube by one of his stu­ dents. In some respects like Günter Hartmann more than a decade later, Piersig reacted against the overwhelmingly panegyrical tone of the literature around Straube and pro­ duced an equally subjective (though nonetheless valuable) commentary in the negative. In his statement excerpted above, it is not clear what Piersig meant by ‘the Reimann’ as an introduction to organ playing, and he is the only author I know to have referred to it. Perhaps Straube used his Berlin mentor Heinrich Reimann’s Studien op. 8 (1887) in this regard, or (an interesting but unlikely possibility) ‘Reimann’ might be a simple printing error for ‘Riemann,’ in which case Piersig would have meant the very methodi­ cal Technische Studien of Hugo Riemann and Carl Armbrust (1890). 106. It would be difficult to overestimate the enduring importance of contemporary piano technique with respect to a technical foundation for the organ works of Reger. The reper­ tory required for the piano examinations at Straube’s Church Music Institute in 1927 included Beethoven’s E-minor Sonata op. 90, the first movements of the Beethoven and Schumann sonatas opp. 7 and 22 respectively, preludes and fugues from Das Wohltem­ perierte Klavier, and sight reading of Dvorak’s F-major Sonata op. 57. Jähnig, ‘Zu den Reifeprüfungen,’ 76-77. In a letter of 10 April 1941, Straube wrote to Michael Schneider regarding historical organ pedagogy: ‘What is missing among the old sources is any ref­ erence to relaxation and freedom of posture while playing. Also missing is the demand of learning to master kinesthetically difficult passages by methodically transforming them into “technical studies.” But we have appropriated both of these from the method of modem piano performance.’ [‘Was bei den Alten fehlt, ist der Hinweis auf Entspannung und Gelöstsein der ganzen Körperhaltung während des Spieles, auch fehlt die Forderung, motorisch schwierige Stellen durch methodische Umgestaltung in “technische Übun­ gen” allmählich beherrschen zu lernen. Aber beides haben wir übernommen von der Art und Methode des modernen Klavierspieles.’] Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 126. Heinz Wunderlich addresses the issue of piano technique for organists at Leipzig in Wunderlich, ‘Karl Straube, der Orgelpädagoge,’ 39-40. 107. The relationship between Gurlitt-Mahrenholz-Jahnn Orgelbewegung ideologies and per­ formance style was for Straube not as clear-cut as is commonly supposed. Straube’s acceptance of objectivity in organ playing was by no means sudden, and the evidence of his attitudes from the 1920s onward suggests a tenacious ambivalence about ‘Romantic’ style in Bach as well as Reger. Friedrich Högner recalled that he studied Bach’s Sonata

264 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition BWV 529 using the Walze in 1922, i.e. a year after Straube’s famous dedicatory recital on Gurlitt’s ‘Praetorius’ organ at Freiburg University, even though he and Straube began shortly thereafter to relearn the Bach works ‘auf Walzenfreiheit.* Friedrich Högner, ‘Persönliche Erinnerungen an Karl Straube,’ Gottesdienst und Kirchenmusik 5 (September -October 1972): 166. See also in this regard Straube’s (undated) statement to Erwin Zillinger, cited by Zillinger in 1960: ‘People today have no idea that Romanticism is a spiritual life form to be found in all periods. One cannot overcome it per se. [Jugend­ musikbewegung leader Fritz] Jöde’s grandchildren will certainly be Romantics, because the objectivity of the ancestors will grate on their nerves.* [‘Die Heutigen ahnen nichts davon, daß Romantik eine geistige Lebensform ist, die zu allen Zeiten zu finden, an sich unüberwindbar ist. Die Urenkel von Jöde werden sicherlich wieder Romantiker sein, denn die Sachlichkeit der Ahnen wird denen auf die Nerven fallen.’] Zillinger, ‘Das Ver­ mächtnis des Orgelmeisters Karl Straube,’ 53. 108. No currently available evidence suggests that the collected Präludien und Fugen of Straube’s 1919 Reger edition (EP 3455) played any role in his teaching. The possible exception is the D-minor/major Toccata and Fugue op. 59/5+6, included in the 1919 publication and repeatedly performed on Conservatory programs. 109. Wilibald Gurlitt, who had been a pupil of both Schering and Riemann at Leipzig during the 1910s, is prominent among these, but the list would also include Christhard Mahrenholz and (to a lesser extent) Hans Henny Jahnn. A number of musicians who were prod­ ucts of the Leipzig Conservatory—the Straube pupil Günther Ramin, for example, and the Reger pupil Hermann Grabner—played various roles in the Bewegungen as well. 110. In addition to the following account, I have treated the history of the instrument in ‘The Organ of the Leipzig Conservatory 1887-1944,’ The Organ Yearbook 30 (2001), 149-179. See also the collection and reproduction of documents pertaining to the organ’s history in Maren Goltz, Das Kirchenmusikalische Institut: Spuren einer wechselvollen Geschichte (Leipzig: Hochschule für Musik und Theater ‘Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy’, 2001), 112-116. 111. Of course, Straube was associated with the organ of St. Thomas Church from 1903 and with the Gewandhaus instrument from 1908. The 1909 renovation and expansion of the Conservatory organ paralleled similar alterations under Straube at both St. Thomas (1908) and the Gewandhaus (1909), but these latter instruments fell under the supervi­ sion of Günther Ramin in 1918 and 1920, respectively. Straube’s association with the St. Thomas organ ended altogether when he relinquished the Cantorate in January 1940. 112. Gerhard Walcker kindly provided me with a photocopy of the original document, now housed in the E. F. Walcker archive in Kleinblittersdorf. Walcker also points out that another, smaller instrument of nineteen stops (Walcker Opus 492) was installed at the same time, probably in a studio or practice room of the Conservatory. 113. See the discussion regarding Straube’s expansion of the St. Thomas instrument in Chapter 2. 114. The opus number is lost. The archive of the Sauer firm records only ‘Bj [Baujahr] 1909, III/53, zerstört.’ 115. Sauer usually included a maximum of three free combinations, even on large instruments.

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 265 Straube was likely thinking of Sauer’s organ for Berlin’s Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche (Opus 660, 1895 and 1897) which featured six combinations at the instigation of Straube’s mentor Heinrich Reimann. 116. So far as I know, the 1909 specification is included only in the 1922 volume of Der Kirchenchor. Also cited there is a three-manual, thirty-two stop organ (‘Sauer umge­ baut,’ perhaps an expansion of Walcker Opus 492 mentioned above) in Conservatory Room 33, a harmonium of two manuals and pedal by Mannborg in Room 47, and a threemanual, twenty-stop instrument by Jahn (Dresden) in Room 48. The organs in Rooms 33 and 48 included swell shutters and Walze, and the larger instrument in Room 33 had three free combinations. (The Jahn organ had none.) This appears to have constituted the organ facilities of the Leipzig Conservatory by 1922. See ‘Dispositionen der im Konser­ vatorium zu Leipzig befindlichen Orgeln,’ Der Kirchenchor 33 (1922): 85-86. In addi­ tion, the Sauer archive (Müllrose) holds a diagram for a small practice instrument of two manuals and pedal which, given its opus number (1319), must have been installed at the Conservatory sometime before 1927. 117. Similar photographs of Straube at the console have not emerged, although Maren Goltz has recently published a photo, apparently dating from the 1940s, of an older Straube with an unidentified pupil at the instrument. Goltz, Das Kirchenmusikalische Institut, 53. 118. Insofar as German commentators named the principle at all, they appear to have favored the idea of compromise (Kompromiß) over eclecticism (Eklektik). The former term car­ ries somewhat negative overtones which are often quite obvious in context of its usage: something of inherent value is relinquished in order to gain something for the apparent good of the collective. 119. But not case design, key action, etc. The primacy of sound (Klang), which constituted the foundation of Gurlitt’s historical paradigm, was as operative in the 1927 Leipzig renovations as it was in the 1926 ‘Praetorius’ organ at Freiburg University, as it was, ulti­ mately, in precisely the subjective Wagnerian aesthetic which the German organ reform of the 1920s sought to overcome. The same aesthetic informs Ramin’s 1937 definition o f ‘Werktreue’ (unsatisfactorily translated here as ‘authenticity’): ‘When one takes seri­ ously the often misunderstood and misused concept of “authenticity,” this means nothing other than that a musician honestly strives in performance to place every great musical work of art in the world of expression and sound proper to it. And this is different with Josquin de Prèz, Palestrina, Buxtehude, Bach, Bruckner, und Reger.* [‘ ... wenn man den häufig mißverstandenen und falsch angewandten Begriff der “Werktreue” ernst nimmt, so bedeutet dies nichts anderes, als daß man sich in der reproduktiven Kunstausübung ehrlich bemüht, jedes große musikalische Kunstwerk bei seiner Wiedergabe in die ihm zugehörige Ausdrucks- und Klangwelt zu stellen. Und dies ist verschieden bei Josquin de Près, Palestrina, Buxtehude, Bach, Bruckner und Reger.’] Günther Ramin, ‘Stil und Manier: Betrachtungen zur Wiedergabe der Orgelmusik verschiedener Zeiten,’ Musik und Kirche 9 (1937): 213. 120. ‘ ... in der Art des alten Hauptwerkes (I. Manual), Rückpositiv (II. Manual), Oberwerk (III. Manual)... ’ Program sheet preserved in the Archive of the Hochschule fur Musik

266 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition und Theater ‘Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy’ Leipzig. The complete citation appears in Chapter 3, note 66. 121. ‘ ... insbesondere der Schöpfungen Regers und Zeitgenossen.’ Ibid. 122. ‘Andererseits sind die modernen Hilfsmittel (Crescendowalze, Jalousie-Tritt, freie Komb., Koppeln usw.) weitgehend berücksichtigt worden.’ Ibid. 123. Ramin, ‘Die neue Orgel*; Wilhelm Jung, ‘Die neue Orgel des Landeskonservatoriums zu Leipzig,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker, 15 December 1927,137. 124. As pointed out in note 66 of Chapter 3, the author of the remarks to Ramin’s recital program is not cited. It is possible to claim Ramin as the source, since the short article on page 58 of the conference’s Einführungsheft includes much the same wording and is there attributed to him. The article’s opening sentence, however, places that attribution in question: ‘The instrument stems from the old Sauer firm and was subjected to a badly needed renovation in the summer of 1926, whereby, according to information from Herr G. Ramin, some of the old, tonally quite useless stops were exchanged.* [‘Das Instrument stammt von der alten Firma Sauer und wurde im Sommer 1926 einer dringend notwen­ digen Revision unterzogen, wobei nach den Angaben von Herrn G. Ramin einige der vorhandenen, klanglich recht unbrauchbaren Stimmen ausgewechselt wurden.’] Ramin, ‘Die neue Orgel,’ 53. Because Jung’s December article in the Zeitschriftför Kirchen­ musiker reproduced and augmented the contents of the Einfuhrungsheft, it is likewise possible that Jung authored all three sources. The Einfuhrungsheft article indicated that the whole renovation project grew out of an earlier, narrower initiative to give Sauer’s 1909 Manual II the ‘tonal character of an old Rückpositiv (addition of a Sesquialtera, a Zimbel, a Scharff, a Gemshom 8’)’ [‘ ... Klangcharacter eines alten Rückpositivs (Einfügung einer Sesquialtera, einer Zimbel, eines Scharff, eines Gemshoms 8’).’]. Ramin, ‘Die neue Orgel,’ 53. The Gemshom in fact did not appear in 1927. 125. ‘ ... nur einige der Stimmen..., die dem barocken Charakter der Orgel Rechnung tragen. Es wären dies etwa:... ’ Jung, ‘Die neue Orgel,’ 137. 126. ‘ ... der Kompromiß würde nicht nur meinen (den historisch-wissenschaftlichen) Orgel­ typus zerstören, sondem auch den modernen, und dann hat man überhaupt nichts mehr.’ Cited by Jacques Handschin, ‘Die Freiburger Tagung für deutsche Orgelkunst,’ Zeitschrift för Musikwissenschaft 8 (1926): 649. Cf. Jahnn’s comments to Mahrenholz about the Leipzig organ specifically, reproduced in Chapter 3, note 68. 127. Straube did not contribute to the printed discussion around the 1927 organ, but he showed his confidence in the Leipzig project when he constructed his edition of Reger’s Fantasy on the Chorale Fin feste Burg ist unser Gott ’ op. 27 around the new stoplist in 1938. It is worth noting, though, that he did not do the same for his 1934 edition of Bach’s Eight Little Preludes and Fugues (Peters Edition EP 4442), the registrations for which are based on the 1721 Silbermann or^an at the Georgenkirche of Rötha. This is particularly curious, since writers tended to underscore the ‘Baroque’ character of the Conservatory’s instrument. 128. ‘Die Forderung, daß die Orgel für die Literatur aller Zeiten geeignet sein muß, läßt sich zudem in strengem Sinne gamicht ausführen. Deshalb wird in der Praxis die Forderung der historischen Treue in klanglicher Hinsicht eigentlich nur für Reger oder (im Lager

Reger's Music at the Leipzig Conservatory ... 1907-1948 267 der Elsässer) für César Franck und Charles-Marie Widor erhoben, während die älteren Meister vor Bach auf dieser Orgel nach einer mündlichen Äußerung Albert Schweitzers mir gegenüber nur “zur Not” darstellbar sein sollen.’ Christhard Mahrenholz, ‘Fünfzehn Jahre Orgelbewegung,* Musik und Kirche 10 (1938): 18. 129. ‘ ... die klanglichen Voraussetzungen für eine befriedigende Darstellung der alten wie der modernen Orgelkompositionen ... ’ Ramin, ‘Die neue Orgel,’ 53. 130. Ramin’s second choice would probably have been Liszt’s Weinen, Klagen ' variations or BACH Präludium. The appearance of a sonata by Mendelssohn or Rheinberger would have been less likely or, if Straube himself had undertaken the performance, out of the question. 131. ‘Wie wundervoll klar, schlicht und keusch erklangen die altertümlichen, gleichsam neuentdeckten Orgelstimmen in den Werken von Vincent Lübeck..., Sweelinck..., Bux­ tehude ..., wie glanzvoll und mächtig erstrahlte das Werk bei César Franck, Reger und Hermann Grabners gewaltiger Fantasie “Media vita in morte sumus.” Und inmitten aller dieser Werke leuchtete die unvergängliche Pracht von Bachs Toccata, Adagio und Fuge C-Dur.’ Jung, ‘Die neue Orgel,’ 137. 132.4Wie oft begegnet es einem aber, daß ein junger Musiker das Spielen etwa der Regerschen Orgelmusik ablehnt, weil Regers Kunst nicht mehr der musikalischen und kultischen Haltung unserer Tage entspricht; er vergißt dabei, daß Max Reger—unabhängig von jeder persönlichen Einstellung zum musikalisch-geistigen Inhalt seiner Kunst—eine durchaus prägnante, stilistisch umrissene und phantasiereiche Erscheinung im Ablauf der Orgelmusikgeschichte darstellt. Und er vergißt ferner, daß das Spiel Regerscher Orgelwerke eine Fülle spieltechnischer und klanggestalterischer Probleme und Anre­ gungen bietet, deren Überwindung und Verarbeitung einen erheblichen Fortschritt im technischen und musikalischen Studium überhaupt bedeutet.’ Ramin, ‘Stil und Manier,’ 214-215. 133. Straube, Max Reger: Werden und Vollendung. See above. 134. English Preface to Reger, Phantasie über den Choral ‘Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott ’ op. 27, ed. Straube. See further the extended discussion of Straube’s 1938 edition in Chapter 3. 135. Of the three works mentioned, the Sonata op. 60 bears the most detailed information in this regard. Particularly interesting is Lillich’s note to himself in bar 48 of the second movement (Invocation), just before the entrance of the chorale ‘Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her,* marked by Reger ‘III. Man. (8*) (sehr lichte Registrierung).’ Lillich’s registration: ‘HR [Handregistrierung] III Femfl. 4’ Viol. 4’ Flaut. [2*] Quinte, Terz. Siffl 1’ on.* This ‘very luminous registration* would have included, of course, an 8’ basis drawn earlier in the piece, but it has little in common with an ‘authentic’ Reger, either in the sense of Reger’s own indications or Straube’s earlier practice. The passage is repro­ duced from Lillich’s score in Anderson, ‘Die Regemoten des Straube-Schülers George Lillich,’ 352. 136. ‘Unter Organo Pleno (Org PI) verstehe ich volles Werk mit sämtlichen Koppeln (K).* Composer’s footnote to the original edition of (among other works) op. 27, not repro­ duced, by the way, in Straube’s 1938 arrangement. In a letter of 25 February 1944 to

268 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition Hans Klotz, Straube stated that the tonal character of the 1927 instrument had been suf­ ficient for the dynamic demands of Reger’s Variations and Fugue on an Original Theme in F-sharp minor op. 73. Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 173. Note 71 of Chapter 3 cites the passage in context. 137. ‘ ... die klanglichen Voraussetzungen der nachbachschen Zeit [wurden] in besonderem Maße berücksichtigt... ’ Ramin, ‘Die neue Orgel,* 53. 138. ‘Seit einer Reihe von Jahren, etwa 1938, haben wir im Saal eine Barockorgel gemäß den strengen Gesetzesordnungen der “Orgelbewegung.”*Letter of 25 February 1944 to Hans Klotz. Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors, 173-174. Cf. Chapter 3, note 71. 139. ‘Die Orgel im Konzertsaal des Konservatoriums muß, wenn ich mich nicht irre, in den dreißiger Jahren noch einmal umgebaut worden sein. Ich erinnere mich an ein prachtvolles Instrument mit elektrischer—nicht mechanischer Traktur.’ Autograph letter of 25 September 1996 to the author.

Appendix 1

Documented Performances o f Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory, or at Concerts Sponsored by the Conservatory, 1905-1949

The material below covers the period from the first known performance of a Reger work to the last preserved program sheet with a Reger work prior to Karl Straube’s death in 1950. Documentation is from printed program sheets preserved in the Archive of the Hochschule fur Musik und Theater ‘Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy’, Leipzig. Records are incomplete, especially during and following World War II. When a date does not appear beside an entry, the date above the entry should be assumed. Spelling has been standardized (e.g. ‘Fantasie’ instead of ‘Phantasie’). Performers and teach­ ers are given consistently only in the case of organ works. (I have, however, included this information for the Lieder performances of 1905 and 1906 which predate the introduction of the organ works.) When the purpose of the performance is clear from the program sheet, I have indicated this in parentheses along with the instrumentation or genre: (E) = examination, and (R) = student recital or concert. Karl Hoy er’s many Conservatory-sponsored organ recitals at Leipzig’s Nicolaikirche during the 1920s and 1930s are indicated with his initials (KH), as are Friedrich Högner’s solo recitals at the Conservatory (FH).

269

1905

17 Mar.

Schlichte Weisen op. 76: ‘Waldeinsamkeit’

Lied (E)

Emmy Weinschenk/Hedmondt+Paul Hötzel

Schlichte Weisen op. 76: ‘Waldeinsamkeit’ Choralfantasie *E in feste Burg' op. 27 Choralfantasie ‘Wie schön leucht ï ’ op. 40/1 5 Gesänge op. 37: ‘Volkslied’

Lied (E) org (E) org (E) Lied (R)

Hildegard Gräfe/E. Lindnerf-Wolfgang Lenter Walter Eschenbach/Homeyer Fritz Stein/Homeyer

6 Lieder op. 35: ‘Flieder’ Schlichte Weisen op. 76/1: ‘Mein Schätzlein’

Lied (R) Lied (R)

Choralfantasie ‘Ein feste Burg ’ op. 27 Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 Suite im alten Stil op. 93

org (E) org (E) vln/pno (R)

Paul Eiermann/Homeyer Karl Rezik/Straube

2. Sonate d-moll op. 60 Schlichte Weisen op. 76/2: ‘Des Kindes Gebet’ Aus meinem Tagebuch op. 82/2: Nr. 6

organ (R) Lied (R) pno (R)

Karl Hoyer/Straube

12M 2 Mar. 6 Mar. 23 Mar. 13 Jul. 1907

12 Jul. 6 Dec. 1908

11 Feb. 24 Feb. 6 Nov. 19Ö9

22 Oct. 12 Nov. 21 Dec.

270 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Date_________Work(s)________________________________________Genre ___________ Performer/Class ____________________________

Date________ Work(s)_______________________________________ Genre___________ Performer/Class_____________________________ 1910

3 May 17Jun. 1 Nov.

12 Stücke op. 59: Kyrie-Benedictus-Gloria Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 1. Sonatefis-moll op. 33: mvts. 1+3

org (R) org (R) org (R)

Fritz Lubrich/Straube Fritz Heitmann/Straube Hans Meyer/Straube

Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 4 Sonaten op. 42: Nr. 2 A-Dur Schlichte Weisen op. 76/1 : ‘Mein Schätzlein’

org (E) vin (R) Lied (R)

Karl Rezik/Straube

12 Stücke op. 59: Tocc./Fuge d-Moll/Dur 12 Stücke op. 59: Benedictus-Gloria

org (R) org (R)

Georg Kugler/Straube Ehrhard Eisemann/Straube

Intro./Passacaglia d-moll WoO Var./Fuge Originalthema fis-moll op. 73 8 Präludien und Fugen op. 117: Chaconne g-Moll 4 Lieder

org (R) org (R) vin (R) Lied (R)

[Herr] Kurze/Heynsen [Herr] Gatscher/Heynsen

Intr./Passacaglia d-moll WoO

org (R)

[Herr] Peukert/Heynsen

1911

24 Feb. 14 Jul. 3 Nov. 1912

18 Jun. 17 Dec. 1913

1914

10 Jul.

Appendix 1 271

18 Apr. 25 Apr. 21 Nov. 5 Dec.

1215 7 May 11 Jun. 18 Jun. 24 Nov. 17 Dec.

1 Lied Intr./Passacaglia d-moll WoO 12 Stücke op. 59: Kyrie-Benedictus-Gloria 1 Lied 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60: mvts. 1+2

Lied (R) org (R) org (R) Lied (R) org (R)

Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 3 Klavierstücke /. Sonatefis-moll op. 33 ‘Volkslied’ 12 Lieder op. 66: ‘Sehnsucht’ Schlichte Weisen op. 76/2: ‘Es blüht ein Blümlein rosenrot’ Schlichte Weisen op. 76/2: ‘Vorbeimarsch’ 3 Suiten op. 131c: Nr. 1 G-dur Schlichte Weisen op. 76/5: ‘Klein Marie’ Schlichte Weisen op. 76/6: ‘Mausefangen’ Schlichte Weisen op. 76/6: ‘Zum Schlafen’ Schlichte Weisen op. 76/5: ‘Ein Tänzchen’ VarJFuge über ein Thema von Beethoven op. 86 1 Lied 7 Stücke op. 145: Siegesfeier G-dur

org (R) pno (R) org Lied Lied Lied

Ger. Her. Zillinger/Straube

Lied vlc Lied Lied Lied Lied 2 pnos Lied (R) org (R)

Klara Senius-Erler+Max Wünsche Julius Klengel

[Herr] Keller/Heynsen Walter Buchheim/Straube Martin Petonke/Straube

1216 3 Mar. 14 Jul. 27 Oct.1

1 Dec.

Karl Straube

Klara Senius-Erler+Max Wünsche Otto Weinreich+Max Wünsche [Herr] Winkler/Heynsen

272 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Date________ Work(s)_______________________________________ Genre__________ Performer/Class_____________________________

Date________ Work(s)________________________________________Genre ___________ Performer/Class _____________________________ 1917

15 Dec.2

12 Stücke op. 59: Tocc./Fuge d-moll

org

Georg Kugler/?

Intr./Passacaglia d-moll WoO Monologe op. 63: Intr./Passacaglia f-moll 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60: mvts. 1+2 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60: mvt. 3 1. Sonatefis-moll op. 33: mvts. 1+2 Suite im alten Stil op. 93 4 Spezialstudien fur linke Hand allein WoO: Präludium/Fuge es-moll Violinsonate e-moll op. 122

org (R) org(R) org (R) org (R) org (R) vln/pno (R) pno (R)

[Fräulein] Both/Heynsen Alfred Wemer/Straube Rudolf Mauersberger/Straube Rudolf Mauersberger/Straube Hans Keppler/Straube

Choralfantasie ‘Wachet auf ' op. 52/2 VarJFuge über ein Thema von Beethoven op. 86 6 Intermezzi op. 45: g-moll

org (R) 2 pnos (R) pno (R)

Aus meinem Tagebuch op. 82: 6 Stücke [?] Toccata/Fuge d-moll [op. 59?] /. Sonate fis-moll op. 33: mvts. 1+3 Choralfantasie Fin feste Burg’ op. 27

pno (R) org (R) org org

1919

21 Feb. 21 Mar. 11 Apr. 30 May 18 Jul. 22 Jul. 11 Nov.

vln/pno (R)

1920

16 Jul. 23 Jul. 19 Nov.

Hans Keppler/Straube

25 Feb. 6 May 18 Nov.3 16 Dec.4

Horst Schneider/Straube Karl Matthaei/Straube Arild Sandvold/Straube

Appendix 1 273

1921

1922

24 Mar.5 30 Jun. 7 Jul.

Choralfantasie ‘Straf’mich nicht’op. 40/2 1. Sonatefis-moll op. 33 Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46

org org (E) org (E)

Wenni Kuosma/Straube Friedrich Högner/Straube Karl Matthaei/Straube

Monologe op. 63: Fuge (?) Monologe op. 63: Intro./Passacaglia f-moll Choralfantasie‘Ein feste Burg’op. 21 ‘Volkslied’ 5 Gesänge op. 37: ‘Glückes genug’ 6 Lieder op. 35: ‘Flieder’ Schlichte Weisen op. 76/3: ‘Reiterlied’ sic: Stücke für Klavier - Burletta, Elegie, ValseImpromptu, Humoreske, Intermezzo, Capriccio Klaviertrio e-moll op. 102 Monologe op. 63: Präludium/Fuge c-moll

org (E) org (E) org Lied Lied Lied Lied pno

Georg Keller/Heynsen Oskar Malsch/Ramin Karl Matthaei/Straube Victoria v.d. Groeben/Hedmondt+Alex Conrad Marie Minassiantz/Teichmüller

vln/vlc/pno org(E)

Martin Usbeck+Aldof EgersdörferHAlbert Müller Martin Wedel/Heynsen

9 Stücke op. 129: Tocc./Fuge d-moll Streichtrio a-moll op. 77b Var./Fuge über ein Thema von J. S. Bach op. 81

org (E) vln/vla/vlc (R) pno (R)

Gotthold Richter/Ramin

1923

16 Feb. 2 Mar. 16 Mar.6

lONov. 1924

4 Jul. 14 Nov. 5 Dec.

274 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Date________ Work(s)_______________________________________ Genre___________ Performer/Class_____________________________

Date________ Work(s)________________________________________Genre___________ Performer/Class_____________________________ 1925 25 Jan.7 6 Feb. 10 Feb. 15 Feb. 3 Apr. 15 May 26Jun. 27 Dec.

Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 org sic: Romanze für Flöte und Klavier fl/pno (R) Violinsonate c-moll op. 139 vln/pno (R) Suite g-moll op. 131 d Nr. 1 via (R) 3 Lieder Lied (R) Klarinettensonate B-dur op. 107 clar/pno (R) Aus meinem Tagebuch op. 82, 5 Humoreskenop. 20 pno (R) [4 pieces] Träume am Kamin op 143: [4 pieces] pno (R) Träume am Kamin op. 143 pno (R) 3 Lieder Lied (R) Intr./Passacaglia/Fuge h-moll op. 96 2 pnos (R)

Erhard Mauersberger/Straube

1926 Cellosonate a-moll op. 116 Petite Caprice g-moll WoO Blätter und Blüten WoO: [6 pieces] Symphonische Fantasie/Fuge op. 57 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60 Motette ‘M ein Odem ist schwach* op. 110/1 Choralfantasie Halleluja ’ op. 52/3 Var./Fuge über ein Thema von Beethoven op. 86 12 Stücke op. 59: Benedictus Violinsonate A-dur op. 41

vlc/pno (R) vln/pno (R) pno (R) org (KH) org (KH) chor org (KH) 2 pnos (R) org (KH) vln/pno (R)

Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer

Appendix 1 275

26 Mar. 30 Mar. 11 Jun. 27 Sept. 23 Oct. 4Nov.8 7 Nov. 12 Nov. 21 Nov. 1 Dec.

1927 20 Mar. 25 Mar. 1 May 6 May 17 Jun. 24 Jun. 3 Jul. 2 Oct.9 16 Oct. 27 Nov. 9 Dec.

Choralfantasie ' Wachet auf ’ op. 52/2 Klarinettensonate B-dur op. 107 1. Sonatefis-moll op. 33 12 Stücke op. 59: Tocc./Fuge d-moll/D-dur Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 4 Lieder Choralfantasie Halleluja *op. 52/3 6 Intermezzi op. 45: [3 pieces] Var./Fuge über ein Thema von Mozart op. 132 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60 Choralfantasie ‘Ein feste Burg ’ op. 27 12 Stücke op. 65: Präludium/Fuge d-moll/D-dur Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Choralfantasie ‘Wachet auf *op. 52/2 Toccata/Fuge d-moll/D-dur Schlichte Weisen op. 76: 4 songs

org (KH) clar/pno (R)

Karl Hoyer

organ (KH) Lied (R) org (R) pno (R) orch (R) org

Karl Hoyer Sigfrid Walther Müller/Straube Günther Ramin

org (KH) org (KH) org (R) Lied (R)

Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer Gerhard Bochmann/Ramin

vln/pno (R) clar/pno (R) Lied (R) pno (R) org (R) pno (R) vin (R) vln/pno (R)

Gerhard Bochmann/Ramin

1228 13 Jan. 30 Mar. 25 May 15 Jun. 6 Nov. 16 Nov. 18 Nov.

Suite im alten Stil op. 93 Klarinettensonate As-dur op. 49/1 Schlichte Weisen op. 76: [4 Lieder] Var./Fuge über ein Thema von Telemann op. 134 1. Sonate fis-moll op. 33 7 Silhouetten op. 53: [4 pieces] 4 Sonaten_op. 42: Nr. 2 A-dur 2 kleine Violinsonaten op. 103b: Nr.1 d-moll Choralfantasie Halleluja ’ op. 52/3

276 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Date________ Work(s)________________________________________Genre___________ Performer/Class_____________________________

Date_________ Work(s)_______________________________________ Genre___________ Performer/Class_____________________________ 21 Nov.10

Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 Choralvorspiel Aus tiefer N ot’

org (KH) org

Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer

12 Stücke op. 65: Präludium/Fuge d-moll/D-dur 8 Präludien und Fugen op. 117: Ciaconna g-moll Choralfantasie ‘Wie schön leucht ’t ' op. 40/1 Allegro A-dur WoO [premiere] An die Hoffnung op. 124 VarJFuge über ein Thema von Mozart op. 132 12 Stücke op. 65: Improv./Fuge a-moll 12 Stücke op. 80: Tocc./Fuge a-moll Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 VarJFuge über ein Thema von Beethoven op. 86 Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 Monologe op. 63: Intr./Passacaglia f-moll Suite im alten Stil op. 93: Largo 9 Stücke op. 129: Präludium/Fuge h-moll 6 Stücke op. 103a: Aria Choralfantasie Fin feste Burg’op. 27 3 Duos im alten Stil op. 13 lb: Nr. 2 d-moll, Nr. 3 A-dur Aus meinem Tagebuch op. 82/1: Nrs. 1, 3, 7, 8, 9

org (KH) vin (R) org 2 vins (R) alt/orch (R) orch (R) org org org 2 pnos (R) org org vln/org org vla/org org (KH) 2 vins (R)

Karl Hoyer

Violinsonate c-moll op. 139 Choralfantasie 'Wachet auf ' op. 52/2

vln/pno (R) org (FH)

1922

27 Jan. 8 Feb. 22 Feb. 2 May 5 May 14 May 17 May 28Jun. 2 Jul. 11 Oct. 20 Oct.

29 Nov.

Annemarie Camerer/Hoyer Werner Günther/Hoyer Kurt-Wolfgang Senn/Straube Gerhard Bochmann/Ramin Karl Hoyer Carl Herrmann+Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer Carl Herrmann+Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer

pno (R)

1930 24 Jan. 16 Feb.

Friedrich Högner

Appendix 1 277

20 Dec.

Kurt-Wolfgang Senn/Straube

5

Ö S' 3 3«

c

¡3

oo c o o ^

s-s-f?:s §■=n

t* ^»2 ^5» °« SP ^ o o> r^1

-g ^

•§* ac| | £ | g £ i ’S£ s^ ¡*í

$

$


p

u ISO h

3* •§

a l rHOsi — ■

S

1 â S

s

¡2g

i

nig

CJ 8d

otf

2a g5* 3

Date________ Work(s)_______________________________________ Genre___________ Performer/Class_____________________________

22 Jan. 11 Mar. 15 Mar. 1 Jul. 21 Oct. 28 Oct. 28 Nov.

12 geistliche Lieder op. 137: 6 songs 52 Choralvorspiele op. 67: ‘Aus tiefer Not’, 4Seelenbräutigam ’ Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 4 Lieder Fantasie/Fuge d-moll op. 135b 12 Stücke op. 80: Toccata/Fuge a-moll 6 Intermezzi op. 45: Nr. 5 Choralfantasie Fin feste Burg* op. 27 8 Präludien und Fugen op. 117: Nr. 6 d-moll Var./Fuge über ein Thema von Telemann op. 134 Choralfantasie ‘Wachet auf ' op. 52/2

voc/org org org (KH) Lied (R) org(R) org (R) pno (R) org (R) vin (R) pno (R) org (FH)

Violinsonate c-moll op. 139 Streichtrio d-moll op. 141b

vln/pno vln./vla/vlc

Klavierquartett a-moll op. 133

pno/vln/vla/vlc

2. Sonate d-moll op. 60 Choralfantasie Wachet auf ' op. 52/2 Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op.46 Suite im alten Stil op. 93

org org org vln/pno

18 Gesänge op. 75: ‘Aeolsharfe’ Schlichte Weisen op. 76/1: ‘Wenn die Linde blüht’ 4 Lieder op. 97: ‘Das DorT Schlichte Weisen op. 76/1: ‘Mein Schätzelein’

Lied Lied Lied Lied

Karl Hoyerf(?) Walter Zöllner/Ramin Elisabeth Reckewerth/Hoyer Friedrich Gerling/Ramin Friedrich Högner

193311 19 Mar.

22 Mar.

Karl Hoyer Liselotee Bötticher/Davisson+ Wolfgang Riedel/Weinreich Hildegard Schwind/Gerhardt+ Wolfgang Riedel/Weinreich

Appendix 1 279

24 Mar.

Walther Davisson+Anton Rohden Edgar Wollgandt +Carl Herrmann+ Hans Münch-Holland Otto Weinreich+Wollgandt +Herrmann+Münch-Holland

31 Mar. 20 Oct. 29 Oct.

pno Lied

Var./Fuge über ein Thema von Telemann op. 134 Eine Ballettsuite op. 130 An die Hoffnung op. 124 Var./Fuge über ein Thema von Mozart op. 132 Aus meinem Tagebuch op. 82/1: Nr. 3 D-Dur Klarinettensonate B-dur op. 107 Choralfantasie Fin feste Burg ' op. 59 [recte: op. 27]

pno orch (R) alt/orch (R) orch (R) pno (R) clar/pno (R) org (KH)

3 Suiten op. 13 Id: (1 Suite) Klarinettensonate fis-moll op. 49/2 Klarinettensonate As-dur op. 49/1 Monologe op. 63: Intr./Passacaglia f-moll Choralfantasie ‘H alleluja’op. 52/3

via (KH) clar/pno (R) clar/pno (R) org (R) org(KH)

4 Klaviersonatinen op. 89: Nr. 1 e-moll Aus meinem Tagebuch op. 82/4 Aus meinem Tagebuch op. 82/3: [3 pieces] Suite im alten Stil op. 93 Klarinettensonate B-dur op. 107 6 Intermezzi op. 45: Nr. 3 Monologe op. 63: Intro./Passacaglia f-moll 4 Klaviersonatinen op. 89: Nr. 2 D-dur

pno (R) pno (R) pno (R) vln/pno (R) clar/pno (R) pno (R) org (R) pno (R)

Otto Goldhammer/Weinreich Gertrud Birmele/Lassner+Horst Schneider/Martienssen Irene Pretzsch/Teichmüller Ema Stocker/Helling-Rosenthal Johanna Kindermann/Lutz-Huszágh Karl Hoyer

1934

4 Feb. 16 Feb. 1 Jun. 12 Oct. 13Nov.

Friedrich Hark/Hoyer Karl Hoyer

1935

17 Mar. 22 Mar. 31 May 28 Jun. 8 Jul. 25 Oct. 6 Dec.

Arno Schönstedt/Ramin

M ax R eger and K arl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

26 Mar.

Aus meinem Tagebuch op. 82: 1, 3, 7, 8, 9 5 Neue Kinderlieder op. 142

280

Date________ Work(s)________________________________________Genre___________ Performer/Class_____________________________

Date________ Work(s)________________________________________Genre___________ Performer/Class_____________________________ 193612 27 Jan. 28 Feb. 13 Mar. 10 May 10 May

11 May 12 Jun. 19 Jun. 10 Jul. 13Nov.

Var./Fuge über ein Thema von Mozart op. 132 Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 Fantasie/Fuge d-moll op. 135b 9 Stücke op. 129: Toccata/Fuge d-moll 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60 Choralfantasie ‘Wachet a u f’ op. 52/2 Suite im alten Stil op. 93: Largo 12 geistliche Lieder op. 137: ‘Morgengesang’ 2 geistliche Lieder op. 105: ‘Ich sehe dichin tausend Bildern’, ‘Meine Seele ist stille zu Gott’ 3 Duos im alten Stil op. 13 lb: Nr. 1 e-moll Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 Violinsonatefis-moll op. 84 Seranade D-dur op. 77a Klavierquartett a-moll op. 133

orch (R) org (R) org (R) org org org vln/org voc/org voc/org

Var/Fuge über ein Thema von Telemann op. 134 Schlichte Weisen op. 76/1: ‘Herzenstausch’, ‘Mein Bua’, ‘Waldeinsamkeit’, ‘Mein Schätzlein’ Suite im alten Stil op. 93 Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46

pno (R) Lied (R) vln/pno (R) org (R)

Amo Schönstedt/Ramin

5 Humoresken op. 20: Nrs. 1,5,4 1. Sonate fis-moll op. 33 6 Intermezzi op. 45: Nr. 1,2, 3 Solostücke für Klavier: Humoresken

pno (R) org (R) pno (R) pno (R)

Kurt-Otto Schultz/Högner

2 vins org vln/pno fl/vln/vla pno/vln/vla/vlc

Friedrich Hark/Hoyer Arno Schönstedt/Ramin Günther Ramin Karl Hoyer Walther Davisson+Karl Hoyer Charlotte Ramin+Karl Hoyer Charlotte Ramin+Karl Hoyer Walther Davisson +Kurt Stiehler Karl Hoyer Walther Davisson +Anton Rohden Carl Bartuzat +Walther Davisson+Carl Herrmann Otto Weinreich +August Eichhorn +Carl Herrmann +Edgar Wollgandt

5 Feb. 16 Apr. 9 Jul.

Appendix 1 281

1922

29 Oct. 5 Nov. 3 Dec.

C-Dur, D-dur, Aus meinem Tagebuch op. 82: Andante sostenuto, Moderato Fantasie/Fuge d-moll op. 135b 5 Gesänge op. 37: ‘Volkslied’ Schlichte Weisen op. 76/1: ‘Waldeinsamkeit’ Schlichte Weisen op. 76/6: ‘Mariä Wiegenlied’ Schlichte Weisen op. 76/1 : ‘Mein Schätzlein’ Choralfantasie *Halleluja ' op. 52/3

org(R) Lied (R) Lied (R) Lied (R) Lied (R) org (R)

Rudolf Müller/Zöllner

Richard Wagner/Straube

1938

21 Jan. 11 Mar. 18 Mar. 13 May 5 Jul. 12 Jul. 28 Oct. 16 Dec.

Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 Klavierkonzert f-moll op. 114: mvts. 2+1,2 ‘mit Begleitung eines 2. Klaviers’ Monologe op. 63: Intro./Passacaglia f-moll 6 Präludien und Fugen op. 131a: Nr. 1 a-moll Var./Fuge über ein Thema von Mozart op. 132 9 Stücke op. 129: Präludium/Fuge h-moll Var./Fuge über ein Thema von Telemann op. 134 Klarinettensonate B-dur op. 107

org (R) pnos (R)

Walter Auemhammer/Straube

org (R) vin (R) orch (E) org (R) pno (R) clar/pno (R)

Gerold Wilsch/Zöllner dir. Arnold Möller/Abendroth, Hochkofler Erwin Bartelsen/Fleischer

Klarinettensonate B-dur op. 107 Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46 Suite im alten Stil op. 93b

clar/pno (R) org(E) orch (R)

Jan Pontén/Ramin

1939

27 Jan. 5 May 19 Dec.

282 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Date_________ Work(s)_______________________________________ Genre ___________ Performer/Class ____________________________

Date_________Work(s)_______________________________________ Genre___________ Performer/Class_____________________________

I2M 22 May 29 May 26 Jim.

4 Klaviersonatinen op. 89: Nr. 2 D-dur, Nr. 1 e-moll 6 Intermezzi op. 47 [recte: op. 45]: es-moll, g-moll Träume am Kamin op. 143: Nrs. 5, 4, 1, 10 Var./Fuge über ein Thema von Telemann op. 134

pno (R) pno (R) pno (R) pno (R)

Fantasie/Fuge über BACH op. 46

org (R)

1949 15 Jim.13

Karl Richter/Ramin

Appendix 1 283

284

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Gedächtnisfeier for Max Reger. Gedächtnisfeier for Justus Radius. Gedächtnisfeier for Hertha Siegfried. Gedächtnisfeier for Justus Radius. Gedächtnisfeier for Arthur Nikisch. Max-Reger-Auffiihrungsabend. Gedächtnisfeier for Hertha Siegfried. Abendmusik at the Michaeliskirche, Leipzig. Organ dedicatory recital by Günther Ramin, Leipzig Conservatory. Musikalisches Vesper at the Nicolaikirche, Leipzig. The first four programs listed for 1933 were performed in connection with the celebra­ tion of Reger’s sixtieth birthday on 19 March. The series provided a retrospective on four areas of Reger’s productivity in succession: chamber music, organ, Lied and piano, and orchestra. 12. The three programs on 10 and 11 May were held in connection with the Reger Gedächtn­ isfeier, celebrating the twentieth anniversary of Reger’s death. The second of the three concerts was held at the Nicolaikirche, Leipzig. 13. Student recital at the Thomaskirche, Leipzig.

Appendix 2

Documented Performances o f Organ Music at the Leipzig Conservatory, or at Concerts Sponsored by the Conservatory, 1900-1950

Just as the repertory list of Appendix 1 contextualizes Reger’s organ music within the whole of his music performed at the Leipzig Conservatory during the course of about a half century, the materials of Appendix 2 place those same organ works against the background of organ music performance at the Conservatory during the same period. As in Appendix 1, documentation is from printed programs preserved in the Archive of the Hochschule für Musik und Theater ‘Felix Mendessohn Bartholdy’, Leipzig. Records are incom­ plete, especially during the years following World War II. When a date does not appear beside an entry, the date above the entry should be assumed. Spelling has been standardized (e.g. ‘Fantasie’ instead of ‘Phantasie’). Con­ cerning the performance of student compositions (e.g. a student performing his own work, or one student performing the work of another student), the instructors’ names are given in the format ‘organ class+composition class’. In cases where a particular work is clearly meant, I have supplied opus num­ bers for Reger’s works, BWV numbers for J. S. Bach’s works, and BuxWV numbers for Dietrich Buxtehude’s works. As in Appendix 1 ,1 have indicated the context of the performance (here, in the far-right column) when this information is clear from the program sheet. Such contexts fall into three broad categories: (E) = examination, and (R) = (usually) student recital or concert. In the case of solo recitals offered by faculty members of the Conservatory, I have shown this merely by inclusion of the recitalists’ initials after their names. The most prominent examples of faculty recitals are those of Karl Hoyer (KH) and then Heinrich Zöllner (HZ) at Leipzig’s Nicolaikirche during the 1920s and 1930s, but I have also indi­ cated recitals at the Conservatory itself by Friedrich Högner (FH), Günther Ramin (GR), and Heinrich Fleischer (HF). Exceptional events are cited in footnotes. 285

G en re

P e rfo rm e r/C Ia ss

A. G. Ritter J. Rheinberger Ch. Fink A. Guilmant Joh. G. Töpfer J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Rob. Schumann J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Otto Barblan J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger Carl Piutti J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger

Sonate a-moll Sonate a-moll Sonate g-moll Symphonie d-moll Org./Orch. Sonate d-moll Sonate Fis-dur Passacaglia BWV 582 Präludium/Fuge e-moll Fuge 1 über BACH Sonate Es-dur Präludium/Tripelfuge Es-dur BWV 552 Passacaglia BWV 582 Passacaglia Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Sonate a-moll Festhymnus Präludium/Fuge G-dur ‘Dorische ’Toccata/Fuge BWV 538 Passacaglia BWV 582 Legrenzi Fuge BWV 574 Toccata F-dur BWV 540 Sonate c-moll

Else Schneemann (E) Bernhard Uhlig (E) Arthur Schlegel (E) Otto Ludwig (E) Arthur Hennicker (E) Willy Eickenmeyer (R) William Montillet (R) [Herr] Schrader (R) Otto Burkert (R) [Fräulein] Bartholomew (R) [Herr] Meinhold (R) [Herr] Hoffmann (R) William Montillet (R) Leopold Brodersen (R) Willy Eickenmeyer (R) Willy Eickenmeyer (R) William Montillet (R) Franz Wochau (R) Otto Burkert (R) [Herr] Rössel (R) Leopold Brodersen (R) [Herr] Kurze (R)

J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach

Sonate Es-dur BWV 525 Sonate a-moll Toccata d-moll BWV 565

William Montillet (R) [Herr] Meinhold (R) Alfred Lange (R)

1900 20 Feb. 27 Feb. 13 Mar. 20 Mar. 3 Apr. 8 May 18 May 29 May 1 Jun. 12 Jun. 26 Jun. 29 Jun. 6 Jul. 17 Jul. 20 Jul. 26 Oct. 2 Nov. 9 Nov. 20 Nov. 23 Nov. 30 Nov. 11 Dec. 1901 29 Jan. 1 Feb. 5 Feb.

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

W ork(s)

286

D ate

W o rk (s)

G en re

P erfo rm e r/C Ia ss

8 Feb. 12 Feb. 19 Feb. 22 Feb. 26 Feb. 5 Mar. 12 Mar. 22 Mar. 26 Mar. 29 Mar. 10 May 14 May 7 Jun. 11 Jun.

J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach Cari Piutti J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach F. Mendelssohn A. Guilmant L. Thiele Emil Wagner Rob. Schumann J. S. Bach J. S. Bach G. Merkel

Sonate d-moll Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Sonate a-moll Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Sonate g-moll op. 22: mvt. 4 Sonate a-moll Präludium/Fuge a-moll Sonate 'Vater unser’ Symphonie d-Moll Org./Orch. Thema/Variationen As-dur Sonate d-moll Fuge 1 über BACH Präludium/Tripelfuge Es-dur BWV 552 Präludium/Fuge G-dur Sonate zu 4 Händen u. Doppelpedale

18 Jun. 5 Jul. 16 Jul. 19 Jul. 23 Jul. 1 Nov. 8 Nov. 12 Nov. 29 Nov. 15 Dec. 17 Dec. 20 Dec.

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach G. Merkel F. Liszt J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach A. Guilmant J. S. Bach

Legrenzi Fuge BWV 574 ‘Dorische*Toccata/Fuge BWV 538 Sonate a-moll Toccata/Grave/Fuge C-dur BWV 564 Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532 Sonate d-moll: mvt. 1 Fuge BACH Sonate es-moll Toccata F-dur BWV 540 Präludium/Fuge c-moll Trauermarsch/Seraphinengesang Fuge g-moll BWV 578

Willy Eickenmeyer (R) Otto Burkert (E) Gustav Meinhold (E) Alfred Lange (E) Leopold Brodersen (E) Florus Kertscher (E) Franz Wochau (E) Einar Meiling (E) Willy Eickemeyer (E) William Montillet (E) Emil Wagner (E) Friedrich Petersen/Homeyer (R) [Herr] Kurze (R) Emanuel Nowotny/Homeyer (R) Leopold Brodersen Alfred Lange (R) Emil Wagner (R) Bernhard Dreier/Homeyer (R) [Herr] Rössel (R) [Herr] Drokla (R) Leopold Brodersen (R) Alfred Lange (R) Willy Eickenmeyer (R) Friedrich Petersen/Homeyer (R) [Herr] Kurze (R) Albert Jockisch/Homeyer (R) Alfred Vollprecht (R) Oswin Keller/Homeyer (R)

Appendix 2 2 87

D ate

G e n re

P erfo rm e r/C Ia ss

J. Rheinberger F. Mendelssohn J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger E. F. Richter J. Rheinberger G. Merkel J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. Reubke A. Guilmant [?] Schöne J. S. Bach Carl Piutti F. Mendelssohn J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Pastoral-Sonate G-dur Sonate f-moll Präludium/Fuge c-moll Präludium/Fuge a-moll Präludium/Fuge c-moll Sonate Es-dur Fantasie/Fuge a-moll Sonate d-moll Sonate d-moll Sonate b-moll Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Präludium/Fuge c-moll Vorspiel ‘Wenn ich einmal soll scheiden ' Adagio Sonate D-dur Fantasie/Doppelfuge Präludium/Fuge a-moll Sonate d-moll: Finale Sonate A-dur Sonate f-moll Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Präludium/Fuge a-moll

Oskar Grimm (R) [Herr] Schöne (R) Elisabeth Genzmer (R) Oskar Grimm (E) Elisabeth Genzmer (E) Alfred Vollprecht (E) Curt Hermann (E) Friedrich Petersen/Homeyer (E) Hermann Schlosser/Homeyer (R) Bernhard Dreier/Homeyer (R) Oswin Keller/Homeyer (R) [Herr] Engler (R)

A. Neuhoff J. Rheinberger A. Neuhoff

Sonate e-moll Sonate a-moll Sonate e-moll

Albert Jockisch/Homeyer (R) Oskar Grimm (R) Albert Jockisch/Homeyer (E)

im 24 Jan. 28 Jan. 31 Jan. 4 Feb. 18 Feb. 21 Feb. 25 Feb. 6 May 9 May 13 May 3 Jun. 6 Jun. 11 Jun.1 13 Jun. 1 Jul. 4 Jul. 22 Jul. 25 Jul. 21 Nov. 28 Nov. 12 Dec.

? ?

[Herr] Schöne (R) [Herr] Schöne (R) Albert Jockisch/Homeyer (R) Alfred Lange (R) [Herr] Meschke (R) Amo Schubart/Homeyer (R) Emanuel Nowotny/Homeyer (R) Friedrich Petersen/Homeyer (R)

1903 16 Jan. 27 Jan. 16 Feb.

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

W ork(s)

288

D ate

Date____________ Work(s)________________Genre______________________________________ Performer/Class________________ 24 Feb. 3 Mar. 10 Mar. 4 Apr. 8 May 15 May 26 May 19Jun. 6 Nov. 13 Nov. 20 Nov. 27 Nov.

J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach A. Ritter J. Reubke J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Bernhard Dreier M. E. Bossi F. Mendelssohn J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

4 Dec. 11 Dec.

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach,

Sonate a-moll Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Sonate a-moll Sonate 94. Psalm: mvts. 1 + 3 Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532 Gotische Fantasie über den 3.Psalm Sonate 6. Sonate 'Vater unser ' Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Präludium/Fuge C-dur Chromatishe Fant./Fuge BWV 903 (bearb. Homeyer) Präludium/Fuge e-moll Toccata F-dur BWV 540

Hermann Schlosser/Homeyer (E) Oswin Keller/Homeyer (E) Friedrich Petersen/Homeyer (E) Emanuel Nowotny/Homeyer (E) Amo Schubart/Homeyer (R) Bernhard Dreier/Homeyer (R) Bernhard Dreier/Homeyer (R) Renzo Bossi/Homeyer (R) Walter Eschenbach/Homeyer (R) Renzo Bossi/Homeyer (R) Alfred Stier/Homeyer (R) Amo Schubart/Homeyer (R) Bernhard Dreier/Homeyer (R) [Herr] Claypole (R)

1904

22 Jan. 29 Jan. 9 Feb. 23 Feb. 8 Mar. 29 Mar. 13 May 17 May 28 Oct.2

J. Rheinberger Rob. Schumann J. Rheinberger J. Rheinberger C. A. Fischer E. Bossi Carl Piutti J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach

11 Nov. 18 Nov.

F. Liszt J. Rheinberger

Sonate c-moll Fuge über BACH Sonate b-moll Sonate es-moll Orgelkonzert *Ostern mvts. 1+ 3 Konzert Org./Orch. Pfingstfeier Fantasie Sonate d-moll Vorspiel Herzlich tut michverlangen ' BWV 727 Fantasie BACH Sonate a-moll

[Herr] von Holten (R) [Fräulein] Meyhoffer (R) Bernhard Dreier/Homeyer (E) Alfred Stier/Homeyer (E) Arno Schubart/Homeyer (E) Renzo Bossi/Homeyer (E) Walter Eschenbach/Homeyer (R) Robert Steiner/Homeyer (R) ? Robert Steiner/Homeyer (R) Walter Eschenbach/Homeyer (R)

t s

K) K) 00

vo

D ate

W ork(s)

G en re

P erfo rm e r/C lass

290

9 Dec. 16 Dec.

J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach

Sonate d-moll: Allegro Präludium/Fuge a-moll

Robert Bocke/Homeyer (R) Thomas Geller/Homeyer (R)

F. Mendelssohn [?] Grisch J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger A. Guilmant J. Reubke Fritz Grüner A. Heinemann J. S. Bach J. S. Bach F. Liszt J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Sonate c-moll Präludium/Fuge Toccata F-dur BWV 540 Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532 Sonate d-moll: mvt. 1 Sonate d-moll: mvt. 1 Große Sonate 94. Psalm Sonate c-moll Präludium/Fuge B-dur Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Präludium/Fuge e-moll Fantasie/Fuge BACH Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Toccata F-dur BWV 540 Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532

Emil Schennich/Homeyer (R) [Herr] Dean (R) Adolf Heinemann/Homeyer (E) Thomas Geller/Homeyer (E) Robert Bocke/Homeyer (E) Constantin Friedrich/Homeyer (E) Robert Steiner/Homeyer (E) Fritz Gruner/?+Zöllner (E) Adolf Heinemann/Homeyer (E) [Herr] Windingstad/Homeyer (R) Walter Eschenbach/Homeyer (R) Fritz Stein/Homeyer (R) [Herr] Dean/Homeyer (R) [Herr] Schaller/Homeyer (R) Johannes Schumann/Homeyer (R)

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger A. Guilmant F. Mendelssohn

Präludium/Fuge a-moll Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Choralfantasie Fin feste Burg’op. 27 Symphonie d-moll Org./Orch.: mvt. 1 2 Stücke (nachgelassenes Werk): Andante con variationi; Capriccio

Emil Schennich/Homeyer (R) Willibald Schaller/Homeyer (E) Walter Eschenbach/Homeyer (E) Carl Baldegger/Homeyer (E)

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

1905 13 Jan. 27 Jan. 14 Feb. 21 Feb. 3 Mar. 17 Mar. 4 Apr. 14 Apr. 14 Jul. 10 Nov. 17 Nov. 1 Dec. 8 Dec. 19 Dec. 1906 2 Feb. 20 Feb. 6 Mar. 9 Mar. 16 Mar.

Ludwig Krauss/Homeyer (E)

D ate

W ork(s)

G en re

P erfo rm e r/C Ia ss

23 Mar. 30 Mar. 2 Nov.

Max Reger F. Liszt J. S. Bach

Choralfant ‘Wie schön leucht ì ’ op. 40/1 Fantasie BACH Toccata F-dur BWV 540

Fritz Stein/Homeyer (E) Emil Schennich/Homeyer (E) Theodor Buß/Homeyer (R)

J. S. Bach G. Merkel Emil Schennich J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger G. Merkel A. Ritter Emil Schennich F. Liszt [?] Wollfahrt F. Mendelssohn W. F. Bach

Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Sonate d-moll Präludium/Fuge Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Sonate d-moll: mvt. 1 Sonate d-moll Sonate a-moll Präludium/Fuge Fantasie/Fuge ‘Ad nos ' Toccata/Doppelfuge Sonate d-moll Konzert d-moll [recte: J. S. Bach BWV 596]

Theodor Buß/Homeyer (R) Franklin Roeser/Homeyer Emil Schennich/Homeyerf Krehl (R) Theodor Buss/Homeyer (E) Paul Bauer/Homeyer (E) Franklin Roeser/Homeyer (E) Johannes Schumann/Homeyer (E) Emil Schennich/Homeyerf-Krehl (E) [Herr] Sjöblom/Homeyer (R) [Herr] Wollfahrt/Homeyer (R) [Frä.] Mair/Homeyer (R) Emst Flade/Homeyer (R)

J. Rheinberger Max Reger J.S. Bach Max Reger F. Liszt Joseph Haas Bruno Arnold J. S. Bach

Sonate a-moll Choralfantasie ‘Ein feste Burg ' op. 27 Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Fantasie/Fuge BACH Suite op. 20 Präludium/Fuge Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532

Karl Hoyer/Homeyer (R) Paul Eiermann/Homeyer (E) Janie Mair/Homeyer (E) Karl Rezik/Straube (E) Emst Flade/Homeyer (E) Kurt Gom/Straube (E) Bruno Amold/?+Merkel (E) Karl Hoyer/Homeyer (R)

1907 25 Jan. 29 Jan. 1 Feb. 8 Feb. 15 Feb. 8 Mar. 22 Mar. 19 Apr. 17 May 15 Nov. 29 Nov. 1908

Appendix 2 291

17 Jan. 11 Feb. 21 Feb. 24 Feb. 28 Feb. 10 Mar. 13 Mar. 15 May

19Jun. 26 Jun. 3 Jul. 30Oct. 27 Nov.3 15 Dec.

H. Kaun F. Liszt F. Mendelssohn E. F. Richter J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger

Fantasie Fantasie/Fuge BACH 2. Sonate c-moll Choralvorspiele op. 29/1+3 Präludium/Fuge G-dur Sonate e-moll

[Herr] Wollfahrt/Homeyer (R) Franz Thalemann/Homeyer (R) [Herr] Mohr/Homeyer (R) Karl Hoyer/Straube (R) Paul Kröhne/Straube Erich Näscher/Heynsen (R)

F. Mendelssohn Liszt/Nicolai Liszt/Nicolai J.S. Bach F. Liszt J. S. Bach CarlPiutti Franz Thalemann CarlPiutti Max Reger J. S. Bach F. Liszt J. S. Bach J.S. Bach D. Buxtehude Karl Hoyer G. Muffat J. S. Bach

2. Sonate c-moll Festouverture Fin feste Burg’ Ouvertüre‘Ein feste Burg’ Präludium/Fuge c-moll Fantasie/Fuge BACH Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565 Festhymnus op. 20 Toccata/Fuge f-moll Pfingstfeier op. 16 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60 Toccata F-dur BWV 540 Fantasie/Fuge BACH Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565 ‘D orische’Toccata/Fuge BWV 538 Passacaglia d-moll BuxWV 161 Sonatefis-moll Passacaglia g-moll Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565

Erich Näscher/Heynsen (R) Mary Steuber/Heynsen (R) Mary Steuber/Heynsen (E) Paul Kröhne/Straube (E) Jenö Mór/Heynsen (E) Max Schweichert/Heynsen (R) Erich Näscher/Heynsen (R) Karl Hoyer/Straube+Merkel (R) [Herr] Findlay/Heynsen (R) Karl Hoyer/Straube (R) Max Schweichert/Heynsen (R) [Herr] Reimann/Straube (R) Gottfried Deetjen/Straube (R) Quentin Morvaren/Straube (R) [Herr] de Golyer/Straube (R) Karl Hoyer/Straube+Paul (R) Walther Böhme/Straube (R) [Herr] Liebing/Heynsen (R)

1909 29 Jan. 12 Feb. 19Feb. 2 Mar. 12 Mar. 7 May 14 May 18 May 21 May 22 Oct. 5 Nov. 12 Nov. 19Nov. 3 Dec. 10 Dec. 21 Dec.

292 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Pate ___________ Work(s)________________ Genre______________________________________ Performer/Class_______________

Date____________ Work(s)________________ Genre______________________________________ Performer/Class_______________ 1910

21 Jan. 28 Jan. 8 Feb. 15 Apr. 22 Apr. 29 Apr. 3 May 13 May 3 Jim. 17 Jun. 21 Jun. 1 Jul. 5 Jul. 8 Jul. 22 Jul. 21 Oct. 1 Nov. 18 Nov.

Toccata/Fuge Konzertstück c-moll Org./Orch. Sonatefis-moll Sonate b-moll op. 142 Sonate 94. Psalm Thema und Variationen Präludium/Doppelfuge c-moll ‘D orische’Toccata BWV 538 12 Stücke op. 59: Kyrie-Ben.-Gloria Var. ‘Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen’ Sonate D-dur Fantasie G-dur BWV 572 Fantasie/Fuge BACHop. 46 Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565 Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Präludium/Fuge C-dur Intr./Passacaglia b-moll Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537 Präludium/Fuge E-dur Präludium/Fuge f-moll BWV 534 1. Sonate fis-moll op. 33: mvts. 1+3 Sonate c-moll

Karl Hoyer/Straube+Merkel (E) Karl Hoyer/Straube (E) Karl Hoyer/Straube (E) [Herr] Reimann/Straube (R) Palmer Christian/Straube (R) Max Schweichert/Heynsen (R) Karl Hoyer/Straube (R) [Herr] Liebing/Heynsen (R) Fritz Lubrich/Straube (R) Hans Meyer/Straube (R) Erich Näscher/Heynsen (R) Alfred Hartig/Straube Fritz Heitmann/Straube (R) [Herr] Ueberfeldt/Heynsen (R) Robert A. Schmidt/Straube (R) Emanuel Gatscher/Heynsen (R) Fritz Lubrich/Straube+Reger (R) Gottfried Deetjen/Straube (R) Karl Hoyer/Straube+Merkel (R) Emst Joh. Köhler/Straube (R) Hans Meyer/Straube (R) [Herr] Ueberfeldt/Heynsen (R)

J. Rheinberger F. Liszt J. Rheinberger

Sonate d-moll: Intermezzo/Fuge Var. ‘Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen ’ Sonate d-moll: Intermezzo/Fuge

Emanuel Gatscher/Heynsen (R) Emst Joh. Köhler/Straube (R) Erich Näscher/Heynsen (E)

1911

13 Jan. 24 Jan. 3 Feb.

Appendix 2 293

Franz Thalemann M.-E. Bossi Karl Hoyer J. Rheinberger J. Reubke L. Thiele F. Klose J. S. Bach Max Reger F. Liszt A. Guilmant J. S. Bach Max Reger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Fritz Lubrich J. S. Bach [Frä.] Michaud J. S. Bach Max Reger F. Mendelssohn

D ate

W ork(s)

G e n re

P erfo rm er/C Iass

294

lOFeb. 24 Feb. 28 Feb.

Erich Näscher Max Reger J. S. Bach Therese Michaud Karl Hoyer J. S. Bach M. Schweichert H. Bennewitz G. Merkel M.-E. Bossi A. Guilmant J. S. Bach

Passacaglia/Fuge Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Präluditim/Fuge a-moll Präludium/Fuge Sonate f-moll Präludium/Fuge g-moll BWV 535 Präludium/Fuge D-dur Fantasie/Fuge Sonate g-moll op. 42: Intr. + Fuge Konzert Org./Orch. a-moll op. 100 Sonate d-moll: mvt. 1 Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565

Erich Näscher/Heynsen+Merkel (E) Karl Rezik/Straube (E) Fritz Liebing/Heynsen (E) Karl Hoyer/Straube+Merkel (E) Karl Hoyer/Straube (E) Max Schweichert/Heynsen (E) Max Schweichert/Heynsen+Paul (E) Emanuel Gatscher/Heynsen+Merkel (E) Julius Bergsträßer/Heynsen (R) Emanuel Gatscher/Heynsen (R) [Herr] Lämmel/Heynsen (R) Julius Bergsträßer/Heynsen (R)

18 Jun. 21 Jun. 25 Jun. 5 Jul. 12 Jul. 8 Dec.

Liszt/Nicolai Willy Poschadel R. V. Moj sisovies J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Cari Piutti J. S. Bach Max Reger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach

Maurice Longhurst/Heynsen (E) Willy Poschadel/Straube+Reger (E) Emanuel Gatscher/Heynsen (R) [Herr] Flade/Heynsen (R) Hans Meyer/Straube (R) [Herr] Kurze/Heynsen (R) Quentin Morvaren/Straube (R) Georg Kugler/Straube (R) Willy Poschadel/Straube (R) [Frä.] Erbs/Heynsen (R) Hermann Mayer/Straube (R) Max Hugo Brüheim/Straube (R)

17 Dec.

Max Reger

Festouvertüre ‘Ein feste Burg’ Sonate B-dur Romantische Fantasie op. 9: mvts. 1+2 Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Präludium/Fuge e-moll Festhymnus Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532 12 Stücke op. 59: Tocc./Fuge d-moll/D-dur Toccata F-dur BWV 540 Präludium/Fuge G-dur Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Sonate Es-dur: Intermezzo + Fuge Fant. ‘Komm heiliger Geist Herre Gott ' BWV 651 12 Stücke op. 59: Benedictus-G loria

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

7 Mar. 10 Mar. 17 Mar. 31 Mar. 7 Jul. 21 Jul. 20 Oct. 24 Nov. 1912 2 Feb. 22 Mar. 3 May 10 May 17 May 7 Jun.

Hermann Mayer/Straube (R) Ehrhard Eisemann/Straube (R)

D ate

W ork(s)

G en re

P e rfo rm e r/C Ia ss

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach C. Franck D. Buxtehude J. S. Bach M.-E. Bossi Otto Beck Max Reger Max Reger Carl Piutti J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Ch. Mar. Widor J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. Merkel

‘Dorische’Toccata/Fuge BWV 538 Fantasie G-dur BWV 572 Choral h-moll Ciaconna e-moll BuxWV 160 Fantasie/Fuge g-Moll BWV 542 Konzertstück Org./Orch. Präludium/Fuge f-moll Intro./Passacaglia d-moll WoO Var./Fuge Originalthema fis-moll op. 73 Präludium/Fuge ‘Pfingstfeier ’ Sonate a-moll Präludium/Fuge g-moll BWV 535 Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 8. Symphonie op. 42/4: 3 mvts. Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Präludium/Fuge Es-dur BWV 552 Präludium/Fuge C-dur

Johannes Hötzel/Straube (R) Milos Ruppeldt/Straube (E) Johannes Köhler/Straube (E) Friedrich Martin/Straube (E) Julius Bergsträsser/Heynsen (E) Emanuel Gatscher/Heynsen (E) Otto Beck/Straube (E) [Herr] Kurze/Heynsen (R) Emanuel Gatscher/Heynsen (R) [Herr] Bechert/Heynsen (R) Albert Müller/Heynsen (R) [Frä.] Papon/Heynsen (R) Hermann Mayer/Straube (R) Quentin Morvaren/Straube (R) [Herr] Kurze/Heynsen (R) [Herr] P. Bechert/Heynsen (R) [Herr] Clemens/Heynsen (R)

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach R. Mauersberger Rudolf Winter J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach F. Liszt

‘Dorische’Toccata/Fuge BWV 538 Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537 Toccata/Fuge F-dur BWV 540 Introduktion/Passacaglia Präludium/Fuge Orgelkonzert: mvt. 1 Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537 Präludium/Fuge BACH

Eduard Reuter/Straube (R) Georg Kugler/Straube (R) Rudolf Mauersberger/Straube (R) Rudolf Mauersberger/Straube+Krehl (E) Albert Müller/Heynsen+Merkel (E) Albert Müller/Heynsen (E) [Herr] Voepel/Heynsen (R) Emst Liesche/Straube (R)

1913 10 Jan. 24 Jan. 31 Jan. 13 Feb. 21 Feb. 11 Mar. 14 Mar. 18 Apr. 25 Apr. 9 May 23 May 30 May 7 Nov. 14 Nov. 21 Nov. 12 Dec. 1914

21 Mar. 28 Mar. 12 Jun.

Appendix 2 295

16 Jan. 20 Feb.

D ate

W ork(s)

G en re

P e rfo rm e r/C Ia ss

296

19 Jun.

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger A. Guilmant J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger J. S. Bach F. Liszt J. S. Bach F. Liszt J. S. Bach F. Liszt

Präludium/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565 Präludium/Fuge C-dur Intr./Passacaglia d-moll WoO 5. Sonate c-moll Toccata/Fuge F-dur BWV 540 Sonate a-moll Präludium/Fuge g-moll BWV 535 Präludium/Fuge BACH Präludium/Fuge e-moll Präludium/Fuge BACH Choralvorspiel Fin feste Burg ' BWV 720 Var. Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen '

[Herr] Ander-Donath/Heynsen (R) Alfred Wemer/Straube (R) Otto Keller/Heynsen (R) [Herr] Kunze/Heynsen (R) [Herr] Peukert/Heynsen (R) Emst Liesche/Straube (R) Arthur Müller/Straube (R) Otto Keller/Heynsen (R) Paul Geilsdorf/Straube (R) [Herr] Ander-Donath/Heynsen (R) [Herr] Clemens/Heynsen (R) Martin Petonke/Straube (R) Otto Keller/Heynsen Albin Helm/Straube (R)

5 Feb. 12 Feb. 5 Mar. 30 Apr. 7 May 11 Jun. 18 Jun. 25 Jun.

J. Rheinberger J. Reubke J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Paul Geilsdorf Max Reger Max Reger G. Bunk

Max Bernhard Kühn/Straube (R) [Herr] Ander-Donath/Heynsen (R) [Herr] Clemens/Heynsen (R) Max Bernhard Kühn/Straube (R) Paul Geilsdorf/Straube+Krehl (R) Otto Keller/Heynsen (R) Walter Buchheim/Straube (R)

12 Nov. 24 Nov. 10 Dec.

F. Liszt J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Sonate b-moll op. 142 Sonate 94. Psalm Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537 Präludium/Fuge c-moll Intr./Passacaglia d-moll WoO 12 Stücke op. 59: Kyrie-Benedictus-Gloria Einleitung/Var./Fuge über das alt­ niederländische Volkslied Herr, siehe die Not! ' Var. Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen * Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537 Präludium/Fuge C-dur

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

26 Jun. 3 Jul. 10 Jul. 24 Jul. 6 Nov. 13 Nov. 20 Nov. 27 Nov. 4 Dec.

1215

[Herr] Ander-Donath/Heynsen (R) Gerh. Hermann Zillinger/Straube (R) Walter Buchheim/Straube (R) Günther Ramin/Straube (R)

Date

Work(s)

Genre

Performer/CIass

17 Dec.

Max Reger

2. Sonate d-moll op. 60: mvts. 1+2

Martin Petonke/Straube (R)

G. F. Händel Max Reger F. Mendelssohn J. S. Bach L. Thiele F. Liszt J. Rheinberger G. Merkel Max Reger Carl PiuttiMax Reger

Konzert d-moll Org./Orch. (bearb. SeifFert) Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Sonate ‘Vater unser im Himmelreich ' Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Thema/Variationen As-dur Fantasie/Fuge BACH Sonate e-moll op. 132 Sonate g-moll 1. Sonate fis-moll op. 33 Präludium/Fuge ‘Pfingstfeier ' 7 Stücke op. 145: Siegesfeier

Karl Straube Ger. Hermann Zillinger/Straube (R) Günther Ramin/Straube (R) [Herr] Hilbrecht/Heynsen (R) [Herr] Ander-Donath/Heynsen (R) Walter Buchheim/Straube (R) Otto Keller/Heynsen (R) [HerrJWinkler/Heynsen (R) Karl Straube [Herr] Hilbrecht/Heynsen (R) [Herr] Winkler/Heynsen (R)

Otto Keller J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger

Intr./Passacaglia c-moll Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Präludium/Fuge C-dur 12 Stücke op. 59: Tocc./Fuge d-moll/D-dur

Otto Keller/Heynsen+Paul (R) Max Schweichert/Heynsen (R) Pall Isolfsson/Straube (R) Georg Kugler/Straube

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Fantasie G-dur BWV 572 Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565 Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565

Pall Isolfsson/Straube (R) [Frä.] Both/Heynsen (R) Pall Isolfsson/Straube (R)

1916 28 Jan.4 3 Mar. 10 Mar. 12 May 9 Jun. 30 Jun. 21 Jul. 25 Jul. 27 Oct.5 10 Nov. 1 Dec. 1917 2 Feb. 25 May 13 Jul. 15 Dec.6

25 Jan. 8 Feb. 26 Apr.

Appendix 2 297

1918

D ate

W ork(s)

G e n re

P e rfo rm e r/C la ss

298

10 May 7 Jun. 8 Nov.

J. S. Bach J. Pachelbel J. S. Bach

Präludium/Fuge g-moll BWV 535 Ciaconna d-moll Canzona d-moll BWV 588

[Herr] Silber/Heynsen (R) [Frä] Both/Heynsen (R) Albrecht Jost/Straube (R)

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger J. S. Bach Max Reger E. Rôder Max Reger Max Reger J. S. Bach F. Liszt Max Reger J. Pachelbel J. S. Bach E. Rôder J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 Präludium/Fuge g-moll BWV 535 ‘Dorische ' Toccata/Fuge BWV 538 IntrJPassacaglia d-moll WoO ‘Dorische ’ Toccata/Fuge BWV538 Monologe op. 63: Intr./Passacaglia f-moll Sonate op. 33 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60: mvts. 1+2 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60: mvt. 3 Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Präludium/Fuge BACH 1. Sonatefis-moll op. 33: mvts. 1+2 Ciaconna d-moll Präludium/Fuge c-moll Choral-Sonate ‘Allein Gott in der Höh ’ Präludium/Fuge g-moll BWV 535 Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544

Alfred Wemer/Straube (R) [Fräulein] Sheibe/Heynsen (R) Hans Keppler/Straube (R) [Fräulein] Both/Heynsen (R) Hans Keppler/Straube (R) Alfred Wemer/Straube (R) [Herr] Winkler/Heynsen (R) Rudolf Mauersberger/Straube (R) Rudolf Mauersberger/Straube (R) Kurt Freitag/Straube (R) [Herr] Kunze/Heynsen (R) Hans Keppler/Straube (R) [Fräulein] Scheibe/Heynsen (R) Hans Keppler/Straube (R) [Herr] Kunze/Heynsen (R) Kurt Freitag/Straube (R) Hans Keppler/Straube (R)

F. Mendelssohn J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger

Sonate ‘Vater unser im Himmelreich ' Toccata F-dur BWV 540 Sonate b-moll

[Fräulein] Scheibe/Heynsen (R) Oskar Nieberg/Straube (R) Otto Keller/Heynsen (R)

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

1919 24 Jan. 14 Feb. 21 Feb. 14 Mar. 21 Mar. 4 Apr. 11 Apr. 30 May 4 Jul. 11 Jul. 18 Jul. 18 Nov. 25 Nov. 9 Dec. 16 Dec. 1920 10 Feb. 17 Feb. 24 Feb.

D ate

W ork(s)

G en re

P e rfo rm e r/C la ss

2 Mar. 9 Mar. 7 May 21 May 11 Jun. 18 Jun. 25 Jun. 2 Jul. 9 Jul. 16 Jul. 9 Nov.7 19 Nov. 7 Dec.8

J. S. Bach W. Paul J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach F. Mendelssohn J. S. Bach J. Renner jun. Max Reger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach A. G. Ritter

Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 Präludium/Fuge As-dur Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 Präludium/Fuge C-dur Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537 Präludium/Fuge g-moll BWV 535 Sonate A-dur ‘Aus tiefer Not* Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Sonate c-moll Choralfantasie ‘Wachet auf *op. 52/2 Präludium/Fuge e-moll Präludium/Fuge Es-dur BWV 552 Fantasie-Sonate a-moll op. 23

Elis Martenson/Straube (R) [Herr] Kunze/Heynsen+Merkel (R) Pall Isolfsson/Straube (R) Franz Dressler/Straube (R) Helmuth John/Straube (R) Horst Schneider/Straube (R) Kurt Freitag/Straube (R) Gustav Modis/Straube (R) Otto Keller/Heynsen (R) Hans Keppler/Straube (R) [Herr] Kunze/Heynsen Alex Conrad/Heynsen (R) Otto Keller/Heynsen

F. Liszt Max Reger J. S. Bach J. Rheinberger J. Rheinberger Max Reger Max Reger

Fantasie/Fuge BACH Toccata/Fuge d-moll Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Sonate d-moll Sonate d-moll: Intermezzo + Fuge 1. Sonatefis-moll op. 33: mvts. 1+3 Choralfantasie ‘Ein feste Burg *op. 27

Wenni Kuosma/Straube (R) Horst Schneider/Straube (R) Georg Sören Fjelrad/Straube (E) Alex Conrad/Heynsen (E) Georg Keller/Heynsen (E) Karl Matthaei/Straube Arild Sandvold/Straube

J. S. Bach Max Reger J. S. Bach

Präludium/Fuge a-moll Choralfantasie ‘Straf* mich nicht* op. 40/2 Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542

Martin Wedel/Heynsen (E) Wenni Kuosma/Straube Alex Conrad/Heynsen (E)

1921 21 Jan. 6 May 23 May 17 Jun. 21 Oct. 18 Nov.9 16 Dec.10

10 Mar. 24 Mar.n 31 Mar.

Appendix 2 2 9 9

1922

D ate_____________ W ork(s)

G en re

P erfo rm e r/C Ia ss

300

5 May 19 May 30 Jun. 7 Jul. 3 Nov.

Georg Keller Carl Piutti Max Reger Max Reger J. S. Bach

Präludium/Fuge d-moll Pfingstfeier - Präludium/Fuge D-dur 1. Sonate fis-moll op. 33 Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Präludium/Fuge Es-dur BWV 552

Georg Keller/Heynsen (E) Alex Conrad/Heynsen (E) Friedrich Högner/Straube (E) Karl Matthaei/Straube (E) Martin Wedel/Heynsen (E)

J. S. Bach Max Reger Max Reger Max Reger Max Reger J. S. Bach

Toccata F-dur BWV 540 Monologe op. 63: Fuge Monologe op. 63: Intro ./Pass, f-moll Choralfantasie Fin feste Burg ’ op. 27 Monologe op. 63: Präludium/Fuge c-moll Präludium/Fuge a-moll

Martin Wedel/Heynsen (E) Georg Keller/Heynsen (E) Oskar Malsch/Ramin (E) Karl Matthaei/Straube (R) Martin Wedel/Heynsen (E) Hans Thurmann/Heynsen (E)

Max Reger G. F. Händel

9 Stücke op. 129: Tocc./Fuge d-moll Konzert g-moll Org./Orch.

Gotthold Richter/Ramin (E) Friedrich Högner/Straube

Max Reger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach V. Lübeck G. F. Händel Georg Enders

Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Toccata/Fuge F-dur BWV 540 Präludium/Fuge c-moll Präludium/Fuge d-moll 8. Konzert A-dur op. 7/2 (bearb. Seiffert) Partite diverse sopra Ach wie nichtig '

Erhard Mauersberger/Straube Helmut Walcha/Ramin (R) Martin Wedel/Heynsen (R) Günther Ramin Erhard Mauersberger/Straube (R) Gotthold Richter/Ramin+Grabner (R)

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

1923 2 Feb. 16 Feb. 2 Mar. 16 Mar. 10 Nov. 7 Dec. 1924 4 Jul. 19 Dec.12 1925 25 (30?) Jan.13 20 Feb. 3 Apr. 4 Jun.14 21 Jun. 26 Jun.

D ate

W o rk (s)

G en re

P e rfo rm e r/C la ss

10 Jul. 30 Oct.

J. S. Bach G. Ramin

Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 Fantasie e-moll op. 4

Martin Wedel/Heynsen (R) Gotthold Richter/Ramin (R)

J. S. Bach F. Liszt J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Joh. Brahms

‘Dorische ’Toccata/Fuge BWV 538 Fantasie/Fuge BACH Präludium/Fuge C-dur Präludium/Fuge e-moll Choralvorspiele op. 122: ‘0 Welt ich muß dich lassen,’ ‘Herzlich tut mich verlangen,’ ‘Es ist ein Ros’ entsprungen’ Symphonische Fantasie/Fuge op. 57 ‘Media vita in morte sumus ’op. 24 Toccata/Fuge c-moll op. 35 Symphonie gothique op. 70 Präludium/Fugef-moll BWV 534 Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 Präludium/Fuge G-dur Sonate d-moll BWV 527 Sonate A-dur 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60 Toccata ‘Wie schön leucht Ì uns ' Choralfantasie ‘Halleluja ’op. 52/3 Stimmungsbilder ‘Aus tiefer Not,’ ‘O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden’ op. 12/1+3 Chaconne/Tripelfuge op. 73 Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565 Var. ‘Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen ' 12 Stücke op. 59: Benedictus

Gotthold Richter/Ramin (R) Hildegard Lehmann/Hoyer (R) Gottfried Gallert/Straube (R)

1926 12 Feb. 29 Jun. 13 Jul. 27 Sep.

28 Sep. 30 Sep.15 23 Oct.

12 Nov. 21 Nov.

S. Karg-Elert J. S. Bach F. Liszt Max Reger

Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Helmut Walcha/Ramin Karl Hoyer (KH) Herbert Schulze

Karl Hoyer (KH) Egon Hintze/Hoyer (R)

Appendix 2 301

4 Nov.16 7 Nov.

Max Reger H. Grabner Karl Hoyer Ch. Mar. Widor J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach F. Mendelssohn Max Reger H. Kaminski Max Reger Bruno Weigl

G en re

Friedrich Klose

Präl./Doppelfuge über ein Thema von Anton Bruckner Präludium/Fuge Es-dur BWV 552 Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Präludium/Fuge f-moll BWV 534 Choralvorspiele ‘Macht hoch die Tür,’ ‘Der heil’ge Christ ist gekommen’ Choralvorspiel ‘Vom Himmel hoch *

J. J. J. S.

S. Bach S. Bach S. Bach Karg-Elert

Karl Hoyer

P erfo rm e r/C Ia ss

Karl Hoyer (KH) Kurt Utz/Straube (R) Karl Hoyer Alfred Ladegast/Straube (R) Karl Hoyer

1927 16 Jan. 24 Jan.19 25 Jan.20 26 Jan.21 6 Feb.

15 Feb. 16 Feb.22

C. Franck Ch. Mar. Widor J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach G. F. Händel D. Buxtehude J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach N. Bruhns C. Franck J. S. Bach

Choral a-moll 8. Symphonie Fantasie ‘Komm heil \ger Geist ' BWV 651 Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Präludium/Fuge c-moll Orgelbüchlein: 4 Choral Vorspiele 2. Konzert B-dur Org./Orch. Chaconne d-moll BuxWV 161 ‘Dorische*Toccata/Fuge BWV 538 Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Präludium/Fuge A-dur BWV 536 Schübler-Choräle ‘Wachet auf,’ ‘Kommst du nun, Jesu’ BWV 645, 650 Concerto nach Vivaldi G-dur BWV 592 Präludium/Fuge Es-dur BWV 552 5. Sonate C-dur BWV 529 Präludium/Fuge e-moll Choral E-dur ‘Dorische *Toccata/Fuge BWV 538

Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer Alfred Ladegast Egon Hintze Otto Kienle Karl Hoyer

Karl Hoyer (KH) Helmut Walcha/Ramin (R) Wolfgang Auler

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

26 Nov. 15 Dec.17 17 Dec. 20 Dec.18

W ork(s)

302

D ate

W ork(s)

G en re

20 Feb.

Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer Max Reger Arno Landmann Franz Schmidt Gerhard Günther Karl Hoyer H. Grabner Max Reger Max Reger Max Reger J. S. Bach Max Reger Kurt Utz J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach V. Lübeck J. P. Sweelinck D. Buxtehude

Fant./Fuge ‘Jerusalem du hochgebaute *op. ‘Memento mori ’ op. 22 Sonate d-moll op. 19 Choralfantasie ‘Wachet auf ' op. 52/2 Fantasie ‘Herzliebster Jesu*op. Adi Var./Fuge über ein eigenes Thema Chaconne/Fuge (premiere) 4 Charakterstücke op. 35 (premiere) Fantasie ‘Pater noster ’ op. 27 (premiere) 1. Sonatefis-moll op. 33 12 Stücke op. 59: Tocc./Fuge d-moll/D-dur Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Choralfantasie Halleluja ' op. 52/3 Präludium Präludium/Fuge a-moll Präludium/Fuge C-dur Concerto a-moll nach Vivaldi BWV 593 Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 Präludium/Fuge E-dur Fantasia Chromatica Choral-Fantasie ‘Wie schön leuchtet* BuxWV 223 Toccata/Adagio/Fuge C-dur BWV 564 Orgelchoral a-moll 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60 Fant. ‘Media vita in morte sumus 'op. 24 2 Choralvorspiele über Tn dulci jubilo ’ Choralfantasie ‘Ein feste Burg*op. 27 12 Stücke op. 65: Präludium/Fuge d-moll/D-dur

20 Mar. 3 Apr. 1 May 13 May 17 Jun. 24 Jun. 25 Sep.

2 Oct.23

14 Oct. 16 Oct.

J. S. Bach C. Franck Max Reger H. Grabner Hans Klotz Max Reger Max Reger

P e rfo rm e r/C la ss

Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Peter Weinknecht/Straube (R) Sigfrid Walther Müller/Straube (R) Kurt Utz/Straube+Grabner (R)

Karl Hoyer (KH)

Günther Ramin (GR) Hans Klotz/Straube+Grabner (R)

Appendix 2 303

D ate

20 Nov. 27 Nov.25 9 Dec.

G en re

P erfo rm e r/C Ia ss

Max Reger G. F. Händel F. Mendelssohn F. Liszt S. Karg-Elert S. Karg-Elert S. Karg-Elert Max Reger Karl Hoyer Louis Vieme Max Reger

Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 4. Konzert F-dur Org./Orch. 1. Sonate f-moll Fantasie ‘Ad nos ' Characterstiicke op. 86/1+5 3 Impressions op. 72 Chaconne/Fuge/Trilogie op. 73 Choralfantasie Wachet auf ' op. 52/2 Toccata/Fuge op. 36 2. Symphonie op. 20 Toccata/Fuge d-moll/D-dur

Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer

F. Liszt J. S. Bach Sig. W. Müller G. Ramin N. O. Raasted Franz Schmidt D. Buxtehude Karl Hoyer Hans Klotz Helmut Stiehl Karl Hoyer G. Raphael Joh. Engelmann J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Var. Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen ' Präludium/Fuge Es-dur BWV 552 Tocc./Pass./Fuge op. 15 (premiere) Orgelchoralsuite op. 6 (premiere) 4. Sonate fm o ll op. 50 (premiere) Toccata C-dur (premiere) Präludium/Fuge fis-moll BuxWV 146 Toccata/Fuge c-moll op. 35 Fantasie ‘Asperes me ' Passacaglia/Fuge cis-moll Sonate d-moll op. 19 5 Choralvorspiele op. 1 Fant./Pass./Fuge BACH op. 28 (premiere) Präludium/Fuge c-Moll Fuga super ‘Allein Gott in der Höh ' BWV 677 Fant, sopra ‘Jesu, meine Freude 'BWV 713

Kurt-Wolfgang Senn/Straube (R) Hans Klotz/Straube (R)d

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

23 Oct.24 6 Nov.

W ork(s)

304

D ate

Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer Gerhard Bochmann/Ramin (R)

1928 13 Jan. 20 Jan. 22 Jan.

12 Feb. 17 Feb. 24 Feb. 26 Feb. 25 Mar.

Günther Ramin (GR) Karl Hoyer (KH) Hans Klotz/Straube+Grabner (R) Carl Eric Rosenquist/Hoyer+Karg-Elert (R) Karl Hoyer (KH)

D ate

G en re

J. S. Bach

Vorspiele ‘Nun freut euch,’ BWV 734; ‘An Wasserflüssen Babylon,’ BWV 653 Concerto C-dur nach Vivaldi BWV 594 Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Toccata/Fuge F-dur BWV 540 Präludium/Fuge A-dur BWV 536 Concerto d-moll nach Vivaldi BWV 596 Präludium/Fuge e-moll Toccata/Fuge F-dur BWV 540 /. Sonate fis-moll op. 33 Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532 Var./Fuge über ein eigenes Thema 3 Choralvorspiele op. 1 Fant./Pass./Fuge über BACH op. 28 Präludium/Fuge G-dur Partite/Doppelfuge 4Jesu, meine Freude ’ op. 10 2 Choralvorspiele Sonate d-moll op. 19 Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Choralvorspiel 4Ein feste Burg *BWV 720 Choralfantasie 4Halleluja *op. 52/3 Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Choralvorspiel 4A us tiefer Not* Chaconne e-moll BuxWV 160 Ciaconna e-moll BuxWV 160 Toccata/Adagio/Fuge C-dur BWV 564 Pastorale BWV 590 Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532 Choralparaphrase über 4Vom Himmel hoch *und ein Thema von Händel op. 17/2 Toccata/Adagio/Fuge C-dur BWV 564

16 Dec.28

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger J. S. Bach Franz Schmidt Charles Chaix Joh. Engelmann J. S. Bach Her. Ernst Koch Her. Ernst Koch Karl Hoyer J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger Max Reger Max Reger D. Buxtehude D. Buxtehude J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Karl Hoyer

18 Dec.

J. S. Bach

29 Apr.

22 May 25 May 15 Jun. 2 Oct. 12 Oct. 21 Oct. 31 Oct.26 18 Nov. 21 Nov.27 23 Nov. 9 Dec.

P e rfo rm e r/C lass

Karl Hoyer (KH)

Karl Hoyer (KH) Werner Zinn/Hoyer (R) Gerhard Bochmann/Ramin (R) Hans Klotz/Straube (R) Karl Hoyer (KH) Werner Zinn/Hoyer (R) Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer Georg Trexler/Hoyer Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer Gerhard Bochmann/Ramin

Appendix 2 305

W o rk (s)

13 Jan. 20 Jan.29 25 Jan. 27 Jan. 1 Feb. 15 Feb. 22 Feb. 12 Mar. 14 Apr.

28 Apr. 14 May 17 May 28 Jun. 2 Jul. 29 Sep. 11 Oct.

J. Rheinberger F. Liszt D. Buxtehude J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger Georg Schumann J. Pachelbel J. Rheinberger Max Reger J. S. Bach D. Buxtehude G. Muffai J. G. Walther J. S. Bach C. Franck L. Vieme Max Reger Max Reger Max Reger Helmut Stiehl J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger

Pastorale-Sonate op. 88 Fantasie/Fuge 4Ad nos ' Chaconne d-moll BuxWV 161 Choralvors. \Das alte Jahr vergangen ist ' BWV614 Toccata d-moll BWV 565 12 Stücke op. 65: Präl./Fuge d-Moll/D-dur Passacaglia/Finale über BACH Passacaglia f-moll Pastorale-Sonate op. 88 Choralfant. 4Wie schön leucht '/’op. 40/1 Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537 Präludium/Fugefis-moll BuxWV 146 Toccata sexta (Apparatus musicus) Var 4Meinen Jesum lass ich nicht ’ Präludium/Fuge e-moll Choral E-dur 2. Symphonie op. 20 12 Stücke op. 65: Improv./Fuge a-moll 12 Stücke op. 80: Tocc./Fuge a-moll Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Präludium/Fuge h-moll Präludium/Fuge a-moll Concerto nach Vivaldi a-moll BWV 593 Passacaglia/Doppelfuge c-moll BWV 582 Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46

Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer Gerhard Bremsteller/Ramin Karl Hoyer (KH) Friedrich Gerling/Ramin Kurt Krauspe/Hoyer Kurt-Wolfgang Senn/Straube Johannes Stadelmann/Straube

Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Annemarie Camerer/Hoyer Werner Günther/Hoyer Kurt-Wolfgang Senn/Straube Helmut Haass/Hoyeri-Karg-Elert Karl Hoyer (KH) Gerhard Bochmann/Ramin

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

1929

306

D ate_____________ W ork(s)_________________ G e n re________________________________________ P e rfo rm e r/C la ss

D ate

W o rk (s)

G en re

20 Oct.

Max Reger Max Reger Max Reger J. S. Bach G. Böhm

J. S. Bach G. Frescobaldi G. F. Händel

Monologe op. 63: Intr./Passacaglia f-moll 9 Stücke op. 129: Präludium/Fuge h-moll Choralfantasie *.Ein feste Burg ’ op. 27 Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537 Präludium/Fuge C-dur ‘in der Registrierung einer Silbermann-Orgel’ Choralbearbeitung ‘Wie schön leuchtet’ BuxWV 223 Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565 Präludium/Fuge g-moll Orgelkonzert Nr 4 F-dur (bearb. Seiffert)

G. Raphael S. Karg-Elert Sig. W. Müller D. Buxtehude J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Joh. N. David Joh. N. David J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Sig. W. Müller Joh. N. David Karl Hasse Max Reger D. Buxtehude

Partita \Ach Gott vom Himmel’op. 22/1 Pax vobiscum op. 86/5 Präludium/Fuge a-moll op. 26/1 Präludium/Fuge d-moll BuxWV 140 Sonate Es-dur BWV 525 Concerto I G-dur nach Vivaldi BWV 592 (?) Chaconne a-moll Toccata/Fugef-moll Präludium/Fuge G-dur Concerto d-moll nach Vivaldi BWV 596 Präludium/Tripelfuge Es-dur BWV 552 Toccata/Passacaglia/Fuge op. 15 L ’homme armé (premiere) Vorspiel/Fuge e-moll op. 34 Choralfantasie ‘Wachet a u f’ op. 52/2 Präludium/Fuge g-moll

29 Nov. 8 Dec.

D. Buxtehude 13 Dec. 19 Dec.30

P e rfo rm e r/C Ia ss

Karl Hoyer (KH) Alfred Schäufler/Hoyer

Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Kappesser/Hoyer Friedrich Högner

1930 12 Jan. 19 Jan.

2 Feb.

23 Feb.

Friedrich Högner (FH) Karl Hoyer (KH)

Friedrich Högner (FH)

Appendix 2 307

16 Feb.

Karl Hoyer (KH)

4 Apr. 6 Apr. 8 Apr. 30 May 6 Jun. 1 Jul. 15 Jul. 28 Sep. 12 Oct. 2 Nov.

21 Nov. 23 Nov.

G e n re

J. R Sweelinck G. Muffat J. Pachelbel Max Reger S. Karg-Elert Max Reger D. Buxtehude J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Helmut Stiehl Helmut Stiehl J. S. Bach J. S. Bach N. Bruhns Werner Neumann J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Hans Uldall J. Reubke V. Lübeck J. S. Bach Max Reger

Var. \Mein junges Leben hat ein End ' Toccata duodezima Präludium/Fuge/Chaconne d-moll Choralfantasie ‘Halleluja ' op. 52/3 Prologus Tragicus op. 86/1 Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Präludium/Fuge e-moll Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Partita ‘O Gott, du frommer Gott ' BWV 767 Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532 Choralvorspiel ‘Schmücke dich ' Choralvorspiel ‘Jesus meine Zuversicht ' Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Präludium/Fugef-moll BWV 534 Präludium/Fuge G-dur Passacaglia d-moll Präludium/Fuge f-moll BWV 534 Präludium/Fuge A-dur BWV 536 Toccata/Adagio/Fuge C-dur BWV 564 Intr./Präludium/Fuge Sonate 94. Psalm Präludium/Fuge E-dur Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Choralfant. Ein feste Burg’op. 26 [recte: op. 27] Chaconne/Tripelfuge op. 73 Var. ‘Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen ’ Choralvorspiele op. 122: ‘O Welt, ich muss dich lassen,’ ‘Herzlich tut mich verlangen’ Choralfantasie ‘A lleMenschen’op. 52/1

S. Karg-Elert F. Liszt Joh. Brahms Max Reger

P e rfo rm e r/C Ia ss

Karl Hoyer (KH) Alfred Schäufler/Hoyer Karl Hoyer (KH) Hugo Distler/Ramin Karl Hoyer (KH) Alfred Schäufler/Hoyerf-Karg-Elert Johannes Strobach/Hoyer Carl Seemann/Ramin Hans Heintze/Ramin Alfred Schäufler/Hoyerf Reuter Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Alfred Schäufler/Hoyer

Karl Hoyer (KH)

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

7 Mar. 16 Mar.

W ork(s)

308

D ate

D ate

W ork(s)

G en re

24 Nov.

G. Raphael G. Raphael Joh. N. David Karl Hoyer H. Grabner G. Ramin J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Fantasie c-moll op. 22/2 Präludium/Fuge G-dur op. 22/3 Passamezzo/Fuge g-moll Kanonische Var. ‘Nun bitten w ir’op. 44 Fantasie ‘Pater noster’ Orgelchoral-Suite op. 6 Canonische Veränderungen BWV 769 Choralvorspiele ‘Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland,’ ‘Gelobet seist du,’ ‘In dulci jubilo’ Pastorale in 4 Sätzen BWV 590 Var über ein altes Weihnachtslied op. 33

28 Nov. 7 Dec.

J. S. Bach Karl Hoyer

P e rfo rm e r/C la ss

Friedrich Högner (FH) Friedrich Gerling/Ramin

Karl Hoyer (KH)

1931 16 Jan. 18 Jan. 13 Feb. 14 Feb.

27 Feb. 15 Mar.

Joh. Brahms Max Reger D. Buxtehude J. S. Bach H. Kaminski Max Reger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Präludium/Fuge a-moll Partita ‘Erhalt uns, Herr ’ op. 28 3 Orgelstücke op. 4 Kanonische Var. ‘Nun bitten w ir’op. 43 Fantasie/Fuge c-moll Präludium/Fuge a-moll Partita/Fuge ‘Jesu, meine Freude ’ op. 36 (premiere) Fuge as-moll Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Präludium/Fuge fis-moll BuxWV 146 Sonate d-moll BWV 527 Toccata ‘Wie schön leuchtet ’ Intr./Passacaglia/Fuge e-moll op. 127 Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537 Fantasie ‘0 Lamm Gottes unschuldig ’

Johannes Rammig/Hoyer Karl Hoyer (KH) Walter Schindler/Hoyer

Friedrich Högner (FH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Alfred Schäufler/Hoyer

Appendix 2 3 0 9

15 Feb.

S. W. Müller H. Grabner Erwin Lendvai Karl Hoyer Walter Schindler J. S. Bach Sig. W. Müller

17 Mar. 4 May

J. S. Bach Max Reger Samuel Scheidt

12 May 20 May31 10 Jul. 18 Oct. 1 Nov. 20 Nov. 28 Nov.

18 Dec.

Genre

D. Buxtehude D. Buxtehude J. S. Bach Joh. N. David Joh. N. David J. S. Bach G. F. Händel Hans Gài J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach G. Raphael G. Raphael G. Raphael Max Reger Max Reger Werner Penndorf Joh. N. David Sig. W. Müller H. Grabner S. Karg-Elert

BWV 656 Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 Choralfantasie Wachet auf ’ op. 52/2 Psalmus sub communione 4Jesus Christus unser Heiland* Präludium/Fuge D-dur BuxWV 139 Ciaconna c-moll BuxWV 159 Sonate Es-dur BWV 525 Fantasie 4L ’homme armé* Chaconne a-moll Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532 Orgelkonzert Nr. 10d-moll Toccata Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Präludium/Fuge A-dur BWV 536 Präludium/Fuge Es-dur BWV 552 Partita 4Ach Gott vom Himmel ' op. 22/1 Fantasie c-moll op. 22/2 Intr./Chaconne op. 27/1 Choralfantasie 'Halleluja’op. 52/3 12 Stücke op. 65: Präl./Fuge d-Moll/D-dur Triosonate C-dur Praeambel/Fuge d-moll Präludium/Fuge G-dur op. 26/2 ‘Media vita in morte sumus ’ op. 24 Musikfu r Orgel op. 148

Max Reger

Choralfantasie 4Wachet a u f’ op. 52/2

1932 17 Jan.

Performer/Class

Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Seeman/Ramin

Friedrich Högner (FH) Otto Eisenburger/Hoyer Hans Heintze Karl Seemann/Ramin Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Otto Eisenburger/Hoyer

Friedrich Högner (FH) Johannes Piersig/Straube (R)

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Work(s)

310

Date

Date____________ Work(s)________________ Genre______________________________________ Performer/Ciass_______________ Max Reger 25 Jan.

Max Reger D. Buxtehude D. Buxtehude G. Raphael

7 Feb.

Joh. Nep. David J. S. Bach Wolf. Fortner Georg Göhler A. Mendelssohn Karl Hoyer

12 Feb. 11 Mar. 15 Mar. 10 Jun. 28 Jun. 9 Oct.

13 Nov.

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Karl Hoyer (KH)

Friedrich Högner (FH)

Karl Hoyer (KH) Hans Heintze/Ramin (R) Walter Zöllner/Ramin (R) Elisabeth Reckewerth/Hoyer (R) Johannes Piersig/Straube (R) Johannes Strobach/Hoyer (R) Karl Hoyer (KH) Friedrich Gerling/Ramin (R)

Karl Hoyer (KH)

Appendix 2 311

21 Oct. 22 Oct.

G. Ramin Max Reger Max Reger S. Karg-Elert Karl Hoyer J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Choralvorspiele op. 67: ‘Aus tiefer Not’, ‘Seelenbräutigam’ Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Ciaconna e-moll BuxWV 160 Präludium/Fuge E-dur BuxWV 141 Var über den Basso continuo von Joh. Seb. Bach s Orgelchoral 'Durch Adams Fair op. 27/2 Präludium/Fuge G-dur Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Toccata/Fuge d-moll 3 Sonette auf die Vergänglichkeit Partita 'Wir Christenleut* Einleitung/Var./Fuge 'Jerusalem du hoch­ gebaute Stadt ' op. 2 Fantasie e-moll op. 4 Fantasie/Fuge d-moll op. 135b 12 Stücke op. 80: Toccata/Fuge a-moll Fantasie/Fuge BACH Toccata/Fuge e-moll op. 46 Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Concerto d-moll nach Vivaldi BWV 596 Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Choralfantasie 'Ein feste Burg ’ op. 27 Präludium/Fuge e-moll 3 Choräle: ‘Von Gott will ich nicht lassen,’ ‘Wachet auf,’ ‘Wo soll ich fliehen hin’ BWV 658, 645, 646 Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565 Präludium/Fuge C-dur Sonate d-moll BWV 527

28 Nov.

Genre

J. S. Bach

‘Wir glauben alV 2 Clav.+Ped. doppio BWV 680 (?) ‘Nun freut euch ' 2 Clav.+Ped. BWV 734 Passacaglia/Fuge c-moll BWV 582 Präludium/Fuge c-moll Präludium/Fuge A-dur BWV 536 Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532 Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Var. ‘Es ist ein Schnitter ’ op. 19 (premiere) Präludium/Fuge G-dur Choralfantasie ‘Wachet a uf ' op. 52/2

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Kurt Thomas Joh. Nep. David Max Reger

Performer/Class

Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer (KH)

Friedrich Högner (FH)

1933 17 Jan.32 20 Jan. 22 Jan. 24 Jan. 19 Feb.

17 Mar. 22 Mar.33 27 Jun.34

Georg Böhm J. S. Bach N. Bruhns J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach JuryArbatsky J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger Max Reger Max Reger S. Karg-Elert

Partita ‘Freu 'dich sehr ' Präludium/Fuge c-moll Präludium/Fuge G-dur ‘Dorische’Toccata/Fuge BWV 538 Partita ‘O Gott du frommer Gott 'BWV 767 Toccata/Adagio/Fuge C-dur BWV 564 Toccata/Fuge Präludium/Fuge a-moll (Peters II/8) BWV 543 Concerto G-dur nach Vivaldi BWV 592 (?) Toccata/Fuge F-dur (Peters III/2) BWV 540 Präludium/Fuge c-moll 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60 Choralfantasie ‘Wachet auf ’op. 52/2 Fantasie/Fuge BACH op.46 Symphonische Choräle op. 87: ‘Ach bleib

? Herbert Gadsch/Högner (R) Karl Hoyer (KH) Carl Seemann/Ramin (R)

Karl Hoyer (KH) Robert Köbler/Högner (R) Karl Hoyer

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

26 Nov.

Work(s)

312

Date

D ate

W o rk (s)

G en re

P erfo rm e r/C Ia ss

G. Muffat Kurt Thomas Max Reger Karl Hoyer Joh. Nep. David S. Karg-Elert F. Liszt

mit Deiner Gnade’ Toccata sexta, 1690 Var. ‘Es ist ein Schnitter* op. 19 Choralfantasie ‘Ein feste Burg *op. 27 Toccata/Fuge e-moll Kleine Partita über 2 Weihnachtslieder Chaconne/Tripelfuge mit Choral Var. ‘Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen *

Herbert Collum/Straube

29 Oct.

Partita ‘Wer nur den lieben Gott * Toccata/Passacaglia/Fuge op. 15 Orgelchoral-Suite op. 6 Einleitung/Var./Fuge ‘Jerusalem du hochgebaute Stadt*op. 2 Präludium/Fuge a-moll Toccata/Fuge d-moll Triosonate G-dur Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532 Passacaglia/Fuge c-moll BWV 582 Chaconne/Fugen-Triolgie mit Choral op. 73 Monologe op. 63: Intr./Passacaglia f-moll Präludium/Fuge c-moll Orgelbüchlein: ‘Ich ru r zu dir’ BWV 639 3 Bearbeitungen ‘Wer nur den lieben Gott’ Concerto C-Dur nach Vivaldi BWV 594 Toccata d-moll BWV 565 Fantasie ‘Pater noster *op. 27 Orgelchoral-Suite op. 6

Herbert Gadsch/Högner (R)

3 Dec. 15 Dec.

Karl Hoyer (KH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Robert Köbler/Högner (R)

1224 H. Ernst Koch Sig. W. Müller G. Ramin Karl Hoyer

12 Feb.

Joh. Nep. David Max M. Stein Max M. Stein J. S. Bach J. S. Bach S. Karg-Elert Max Reger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach H. Grabner G. Ramin

18 Mar.35 24 Apr.36 12 Oct. 16 Oct.

13 Nov.

Karl Hoyer (KH)

Friedrich Högner (FH) Hans Strobach Karl Hoyer Friedrich Hark/Hoyer (R)

Karl Hoyer (KH)

Appendix 2 313

19 Jan. 4 Feb.

4 Dec. 8 Dec. 20 Dec.37

Genre

Performer/Class

Max Reger G. Muffat Joh. G. Walther J. S. Bach H. Bräutigam Johannes Lange M. Praetorius

Choralfantasie ‘Halleluja ' op. 52/3 Passacaglia Partita ‘Jesu, meine Freude ’ Präludium/Fuge a-moll Partiten über ‘Unüberwindlich starker Held* Intr./Passacaglia/Fuge fis-moll Hymnus ‘A solis ortus cardine*

Karl Hoyer (KH)

C. Franck Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer

Eva Schultz/Hoyer (R)

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

27 Nov.

Work(s)

314

Date

Karl Hoyer (KH) Helmut Emst/Hoyer (R) Heinrich Fleischer/Straube (R) Herbert Gadsch/Högner

1935 11 Oct. 20 Oct.

1 Dec.

Karl Hoyer Max Reger H. Grabner J. Reubke M. Martin Stein Joh. N. David Joh. N. David H. Ernst Koch

20 Dec.

D. Buxtehude

Choral a-moll Kanonische Var./Fuge ‘Nun bitten w ir’op. 44 PrälJFuge E-durfür Barockorgel ‘auf dem 10-stimmigen Jehmlich-Positiv’ Präl./Fuge/Chaconne/Doppelfuge op. 59 Monologe op. 63: Intro./Pass. f-moll Partita ‘Erhalt uns, Herr 'op. 28 Sonate 94. Psalm Triosonate G-dur Intr./Pass. ‘Wach auf du deutsches Land* Toccata/Fuge f-moll Partita ‘Wer nur den lieben Gott * Fantasie in F Präludium/Fuge E-dur BuxWV 141

Herrn. Wagner Ch. M. Widor

Präludium/Fugato fü r Orgelpositiv Symphonie 8

25 Oct. 25 Nov.

Karl Hoyer (KH) Arno Schönstedt/Ramin (R)

Friedrich Högner (FH) Karl Hoyer (KH) Walter Bechmann/Högner (R)

1936 26 Jan.

Karl Hoyer (KH)

Date

Work(s)

Genre

Performer/CIass

14 Feb. 28 Feb. 8 Mar.

10 May

Max Reger

26 Oct.

Karl Hoyer Hans Weyrauch Joh. N. David H. Grabner J. S. Bach Max Reger J. S. Bach

Präludium/Fuge C-dur Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Partita ‘Erhalt uns Herr ’op. 28 Fantasie ‘Paternoster’ Fantasie/Fuge d-moll op. 135b Intr./Chaconne Org./Orch. Prälud./Fuge/Chaconne/Doppelfuge op. 59 Intr./Passacaglia/Fuge e-moll op. 127 2. Sonate d-moll op. 60 Choralfantasie ‘Wachet auf ' op. 52/2 Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Kanonische Var./Fuge op. 44 Präludium/Arie/Fuge Fantasie/Fuge e-moll Sonate op. 40 Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565 Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Konzert a-moll BWV 593

Georg Wegewitz/Hoyer (R) Friedrich Hark/Hoyer (R)

13 Mar. 31 Mar. 8 May 10 May38

J. S. Bach Max Reger H. Grabner H. Grabner Max Reger Karl Hoyer Karl Hoyer Max Reger

Max Reger N. Bruhns Joh. N. David J. S. Bach Karl Hoyer D. Buxtehude Joh. N. David J. S. Bach Joh. N. David

7. Sonatefis-moll op. 33 Präludium/Fuge G-dur Chaconne a-moll Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Intr./Chaconne Org./Orch. op. 9 Ciaconna c-moll BuxWV 159 Partita ‘Mit Fried ' und Freud ’ Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Präludium/Fuge a-moll

13 Nov. 21 Dec.

Karl Hoyer (KH) Arno Schönstedt/Ramin (R) Karl Hoyer (R) Eva Schultz/Hoyer (R) Günther Ramin Karl Hoyer

Friedrich Högner (FH) Klaus Schumacher/Zöllner (R) Arno Schönstedt/Ramin (R) Eva Schultz/Straube (R)

1937

8 Oct.

Kurt-Otto Schultz/Högner (R) Hans Cilensek/Högner (R) Arno Schönstedt/Ramin (R) Friedrich Hark/Högner (R) Walter Zöllner Walter Zöllner Eduard Büchsel/Ramin (R) Klaus Günther Ehricht/Zöllner (R)

Appendix 2 315

5 Feb. 12 Feb. 19 Feb. 23 Apr. 12 May39 16 Sept.40

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

29 Oct. 5 Nov. 3 Dec.

P erfo rm e r/C Ia ss

316

D ate_____________ W ork(s)_________________G en re

Max Reger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger

Fantasie/Fuge d-moll op. 135b Präludium/Fuge Es-dur BWV 552 Präludium/Fuge Es-dur BWV 552 Choralfantasie ‘Halleluja ' op. 52/3

Rudolf Müller/Zöllner (R) Walter Bechmann/Zöllner (R) Klaus Günther Ehricht/Zöllner (R) Richard Wagner/Straube (R)

Max Reger Herrn. Wagner Robert Köbler Joh. Weyrauch H. Emst Koch Joh. N. David Joh. N. David J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger Joh. N. David Joh. N. David J. S. Bach Arild Sandvold H. Bräutigam Walter Pach Klaus G. Ehricht J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Max Reger J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Vorspiel/Fuge C-dur Intr./Fuge e-moll Partita ‘O Heiland reiß die Himmel auf ' Fantasie F-dur Fantasie/Fuge e-moll Fantasie ‘L 'homme armé ' Präludium/Fuge C-dur Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537 Monologe op. 63: Intro./Pass. f-moll Chaconne a-moll Chaconne a-moll Sonate 6 G-dur BWV 530 Intr./Passacaglia h-moll op. 4 Toccata op. 2 Präludium/Fuge D-dur Partita ‘Nun bitten wir den heiligen Geist ' Präludium/Fuge D-dur BWV 532 Präludium/Fuge c-moll Präludium/Fuge a-moll 9 Stücke op. 129: Präludium/Fuge h-moll Präludium/Fuge a-moll Clavierübung III

Walter Auemhammer/Straube (R)

1938 21 Jan. 23 Jan.

28 Jan. 4 Feb. 11 Mar. 18 Mar. 25 Mar.41 13 May 20 May 27 May 3 Jun. 12 Jul. 21 Oct. 23 Oct.

Walter Zöllner (WZ) Paul Dahl/Fleischer (R) Hans Cilensek/Fleischer (R) Charlotte Müller/Zöllner (R) Gerold Wilsch/Zöllner (R) Jan Pontén/Ramin (R) Jan Pontén/Ramin KristofFer Kleive Rudolf Müller/Zöllner (R) Georg Gerhold/Straube (R) Klaus Günther Ehricht/Zöllner+Koch (R) Rudolf Müller/Zöllner (R) Gerold Wilsch/Zöllner (R) Wolfgang Hiltscher/Fleischer (R) Erwin Bartelsen/Fleischer (R) Gerold Wilsch/Zöllner (R) Walter Zöllner (WZ)

D ate

W ork(s)

G e n re

P e rfo rm e r/C la ss

28 Oct. 18 Nov.

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach D. Buxtehude J. S. Bach Sig.W. Müller Hugo Distler Joh. N. David Joh. Weyrauch H. Grabner C. Franck J. S. Bach

Sonate d-moll BWV 527 Präludium/Fuge C-Dur Präludium/Fuge g-Moll Toccata/Adagio/Fuge C-dur BWV 564 Präludium/Fuge G-dur op. 26/2 Partita ‘Nun komm der Heiden Heiland' op. 8/1 Kleine Partita ‘Macht hoch die Tür ’ Partita ‘Singet frisch und wohlgemüt ' Sonate F-dur op. 40 Choral h-moll Toccata/Fuge d-moll BWV 565

Klaus-Günther Ehricht/Zöllner (R) Karl Tittel/Zöllner (R) Heinz Hera/Zöllner (R) Walter Auemhammer/Straube (R)

19 Feb.

J. L. Krebs J. L. Krebs J. L. Krebs J. L. Krebs J. L. Krebs J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

14 Mar.

Joh. N. David Samuel Scheidt Joh. N. David J. L. Krebs D. Buxtehude J. S. Bach C. Franck

Präl./Doppelfuge d-moll Adagio B-dur Trio F-dur Postludium B-dur Toccata/Fuge E-dur Partita ‘O Gott du frommer Gott' BWV 767 Sonate e-moll BWV 528 Präludium/Fuge C-dur (Peters II/7) BWV 547 ‘Christus, der ist mein Leben ' Passamezzo/Variationen ‘Christus, der ist mein Leben ' Toccata/Fuge E-dur Präludium/Fuge D-dur BuxWV 139 Partita ‘O Gott du frommer Gott ' Choral a-moll

2 Dec. 4 Dec.

9 Dec. 16 Dec.

Walter Zöllner (WZ) Ingrid Link/Fleischer (R) Else Kellersch/Zöllner (R)

1939

Walter Zöllner (WZ) Karl Tittel/Zöllner (R)

Appendix 2 3 1 7

17 Mar. 5 May

Walter Zöllner (WZ)

Genre

Performer/CIass

2 Jun. 9 Jun. 24 Nov. 8 Dec.

Max Reger Joh. N. David J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach Eduard Rier

Fantasie/Fuge BACH op. 46 Chaconne a-moll Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 Präludium/Fuge a-moll Toccata/Fuge C-dur

Jan Pontén/Ramin (E) Karl Tittel/Zöllner (R) Karl Tittel/Zöllner (R) Erwin Bartelsen/Fleischer (R) Hermann Fink/FleischerHPetyrek (R)

8 May 30 May42

J. S. Bach Joh. N. David Joh. N. David

5 Jun.

D. Buxtehude J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Fantasie/Fuge g-moll BWV 542 Intn/Pass. Wach auf du deutsches Land’ Introitus/Choral/Fuge über ein Thema von Anton Bruckner Präludium/Fuge e-moll Passacaglia c-moll BWV 582 Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537 3 Choralvorspiele Kyrie-Christe-Kyrie Präludium/Fuge c-Moll

Heinrich Fleischer Kurt Mayer/Straube (R)

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Clavierübung III Fantasie/Fuge c-moll BWV 537

Heinrich Fleischer (HF) Karl Zieschang/Straube (R)

J. S. Bach J. S. Bach

Präludium/Fuge h-moll BWV 544 Canzona BWV 588

Gerhard Nöbel/Hellmann Gottfried Fischer/Hellmann

1940

2 Jul.43 13 Nov.

Paul Dahl/Fleischer (R) Heinrich Fleischer Helge Olsen-Torshoñ/Ramin (R) Ingrid Link/Fleischer (R)

1941 20 Jan. 26 Nov. 1949 15 Jun.44

Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Work(s)

318

Date

«« o ^