-
OJ 12/27, [10] Stenographically handwritten letter from Cotta to Schenker, dated December 12,
1907
Cotta enclose a letter from Karl Grunsky and inquire whether they may disclose
Schenker's name to him as the author of Harmonielehre.
-
CA 71 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Cotta, dated December 16, 1907
Schenker proscribes the release yet of his name to Karl Grunsky. He comments
on a review of his Harmonielehre by Max Burkhardt. He will be sending Kontrapunkt
shortly.
-
OJ 9/31, [17] Stenographically handwritten letter from Cotta to Schenker, dated December 18,
1907
Cotta note the review of Harmonielehre by Max Burkhart, and look forward to
receiving the manuscript of Kontrapunkt shortly.
-
CA 73 Handwritten postcard from Schenker to Cotta, dated January 3, 1908
Schenker asks for the review of his Harmonielehre by Karl Grunsky to be sent
to him.
-
OJ 5/15, [1] Incomplete handwritten draft letter from Schenker to Grunsky, dated January 21,
1908
Schenker has not responded to Grunsky's invitation because of pressure of work
with Kontrapunkt. — He thanks Grunsky for his review of Harmonielehre; justifies favoring
the piano repertory there; remarks on Strauss and Reger with respect to "good" and "bad." —
He refers to his Formenlehre as vol. III of his Neue musikalische Theorien und
Phantasien.
-
OJ 11/29, [1] Handwritten letter from Grunsky to Schenker, dated May 3, 1908
Grunsky thanks Schenker for revealing his identity as author of Harmonielehre.
— He asks Schenker's views on Bruckner, and on his own views of musical
form.
-
OJ 5/15, [2]-[3] Handwritten incomplete draft of a letter from Schenker to Grunsky, undated [?c. June
1, 1908]
Responding to Grunsky's request, Schenker gives his assessment of Bruckner's
music. First exploring common ground between him and Grunsky, he then offers "technical
reasons" why he regards Bruckner as "possessing minimal powers of invention," therefore
cannot call him a "master." In the process, he compares the "Komponisten" (composers) of the
present day unfavorably with the "Tonsetzer" (tonal craftsmen) of the past.
-
OJ 11/29, [2] Handwritten postcard from Grunsky to Schenker, postmarked June 5, 1908
Grunsky will reply as soon as possible.
-
WSLB 12 Handwritten postcard from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated July 22, 1908
Schenker asks for a copy of Beitrag zur Ornamentik to be sent to Karl
Grunsky.
-
OC 52/397 Typewritten letter from Hertzka (UE) to Schenker, dated August 11, 1908
Hertzka agrees to sending of complimentary copies of Beitrag zur Ornamentik. —
Gives progress report on Table of Instrumentation, predicting October
publication.
-
WSLB 14 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated August 19, 1908
Schenker gives list of those to receive a copy of Beitrag zur
Ornamentik.
-
OJ 11/29, [3] Handwritten letter from Grunsky to Schenker, dated September 10, 1908
Grunsky acknowledges receipt of Schenker's Beitrag zur Ornamentik and two
letters; — He recognizes that he and Schenker hold "opposite views" on Bruckner's music but
welcomes Schenker's openness to discussion; — He counters Schenker's arguments on Bruckner's
approach to form, rhythm, theme, and musical character; — He admits his own "antipathy"
toward the music of Brahms.
-
OJ 5/15, [6] Fragmentary handwritten draft letter from Schenker to Grunsky, undated [? mid‒late
September 1908?]
Discusses Bruckner's compositional technique, content, and "eccentric" form:
highly fragmentary document.
-
OJ 5/15, [4] Incomplete handwritten letter draft from Schenker to Grunsky, undated [?between
September 23 and December 31, 1908]
Schenker reports progress on his Kontrapunkt. — The main problem in music is
"how length can be produced." — He recollects his love for the pious Bruckner, and his
admiration for the latter's music, but speaks of its "defects," comparing the music
favorably with that of Tchaikovsky. Bruckner's stumbling block was form.
-
OJ 11/29, [4] Handwritten postcard from Grunsky to Schenker, postmarked November 5,
1908
Grunsky hopes to meet Schenker at the Haydn festival in Vienna. He urges
Schenker to read Halm on Bruckner.
-
WSLB 66/67 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE) + list of names, dated October 19,
1910
Schenker cancels their Thursday meeting. — He argues for sweeping changes to
the draft contract for Beethovens neunte Sinfonie. — He defends his own free speech in the
face of Universal Edition's commercial interests. As with his Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue
edition, UE will never regret publishing the Ninth Symphony monograph. — He also lauds the
prospective editions of the last five Beethoven piano sonatas and volume of J. S. Bach
toccatas in a lofty vision for future publications. — He appends a list of recipients of
complimentary copies of the Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue.
-
OJ 11/29, [5] Handwritten letter from Grunsky to Schenker, dated December 1, 1910
Grunsky thanks Schenker for the gift of his Chromatische Phantasie und Fuge,
and criticizes it for excessive polemic.
-
OJ 11/35, 4 Handwritten letter from Halm to Schenker, dated March 18, 1917
Halm attempts to identify the fundamental differences between their two views,
with reference to Beethoven, Bruckner and Brahms. He and Karl Grunsky have been estranged for
some years.