Ötz, 18. Aug. 1906

Sehr geehrter Herr! 1

Ich übersende mit Heutigem die Superrevision der Bg. 17 u. 18; 2 Bitte aber mir den Bogen 20 einsenden zu wollen, den ich zuvor einsehen muß, bevor ich Bog. 19 druckfertig mache, da die Anmerkung auf S. 299 es so nötig macht. 3


Mit ausgez. Hochachtung
[signed:] H Schenker

© Transcription Ian Bent, 2005, 2017


Ötz, August 18, 1906

Dear Sir, 1

I am sending you the final proof of gatherings 17 and 18 by today's post. 2 But please kindly send me gathering 20, which I must look at before I can have gathering 19 ready for the press, because the commentary section on p. 299 needs my attention. 2


With kind regards,
[signed:] H. Schenker

© Translation Ian Bent, 2005, 2017


Ötz, 18. Aug. 1906

Sehr geehrter Herr! 1

Ich übersende mit Heutigem die Superrevision der Bg. 17 u. 18; 2 Bitte aber mir den Bogen 20 einsenden zu wollen, den ich zuvor einsehen muß, bevor ich Bog. 19 druckfertig mache, da die Anmerkung auf S. 299 es so nötig macht. 3


Mit ausgez. Hochachtung
[signed:] H Schenker

© Transcription Ian Bent, 2005, 2017


Ötz, August 18, 1906

Dear Sir, 1

I am sending you the final proof of gatherings 17 and 18 by today's post. 2 But please kindly send me gathering 20, which I must look at before I can have gathering 19 ready for the press, because the commentary section on p. 299 needs my attention. 2


With kind regards,
[signed:] H. Schenker

© Translation Ian Bent, 2005, 2017

Footnotes

1 Writing of this letter is not recorded in Schenker's diary.

2 Gathering 17 = pp. 257–72; gathering 18 = pp. 273–88.

3 Gathering 19 = pp. 289–304; gathering 20 = pp. 305–320.
The commentary section on pp. 299–300 (omitted from the published English translation) criticizes bars 4–12 of Richard Strauss's Don Quixote, the music of which is given in score as a footnote on pp. 300–304, comparing it adversely with a passage from Schubert's posthumous A major piano sonata, which he has just quoted and discussed:

"By contrast, the antecedent construction of measures 4‒12 of Don Quixote, Op. 35 by Richard Strauss appears to me unnatural, and accordingly inadmissable. — At least I feel clearly here that the composer wanted to circumvent the normal development to the dominant (A major) merely because it is normal.
It is, however, not a "modern" matter to respect Nature and naturalness; at least where they simply should be the case. Perhaps the composer really believes that Nature will, following the birth of his opus, adopt another first upper-fifth to its fundamentals (in this case, Aę instead of A to the fundamental D) and habituate to it. Do not misunderstand me: I raise no objection to the antecedent setting off in Aę, but I do object to this setting-off being not artistically skilfully composed ‒ as for example [it is in] the above-mentioned passage in Schubert ‒ but merely, as if in disdain for Nature, simply appearing there without motivation, exhibiting the mentality of someone who doesn't know what he wants or what is fitting."