The correspondence between August Halm and Heinrich Schenker (thirty-six letters and eleven postcards between 1916 and 1927) chronicles the views of self-appointed spokesmen waging campaigns in a cultural conflict between tradition and modernity during the last few years of World War I and the birth and subsequent sociopolitical and economic travails of the Weimar Republic. In some ways the two men are allies under the banner of traditionalism—preserving and deepening appreciation for the German musical canon—but in others they occupy seats on opposite sides of the political, sociological, and music-aesthetic aisle. Their written communication is a mix of mutual affirmation, self-interested opportunism, and open conflict. The letters provide a multifaceted view of the turbulent times from the vantage points of two similarly motivated men struggling with the same problems, but arriving at different understandings of and solutions for them.

This selection includes seventeen items: nine letters from Halm, seven letters and one postcard from Schenker. A short diary entry of March 1914 provides a glimpse of Schenker’s tacit critical attitude toward Halm’s analytical style. The dialog is on the whole cordial (in 1919 Schenker awarded Halm a stipend: see chapter 10, above), but occasionally quite frank. Often each writes with the goal of gaining some advantage through the other: for Schenker, favorable reviews by a widely-read author in order to expand readership to circles otherwise not attracted to music-analytical writings; for Halm, public endorsement of his music in order to establish legitimacy for his compositions and raise awareness of them. For example, Schenker praises Halm rather over-exuberantly for a favorable review of the elucidatory edition of the late Beethoven piano sonatas, yet six years later calls him “childish” for misguided criticisms of Beethoven and Brahms, and blind worship of Bruckner. Halm frequently sends his compositions to Schenker, or repeatedly offers to send them, and prompts for reactions in hopes of receiving laudatory comments and analytical confirmation of structural soundness (an Urlinie) and genius, neither of which is forthcoming from Schenker’s pen.