RWA Volume I/3 – Fantasias and Fugues, Variations, Sonatas, Suites II; Early reception
Alexander Becker, Stefan König, Christopher Grafschmidt, Stefanie Steiner-Grage
1. Op. 60
The publisher’s brochure issued around September 1902 by F.E.C. Leuckart announced “Max Reger from a totally new perspective” with the 2nd Sonata in D minor op. 60: “Whilst titanic wrestling has formed the content of his powerful symphonic poems up to now, in this sonata there is a simpler, quieter prevailing mood”. The author of this promotional text was Karl Straube, already an influential interpreter of Reger’s Weiden organ works which had brought the composer to public attention and given the music critics ample material for discussion (see Early reception in RWA Vol. I/1 und I/2). Although Straube therefore, as Hermann Wilske established, “in striking contrast with opp. 52, 57 and 73 […] threw his whole weight behind op. 60”,1 the work attracted considerably less attention in the music press than, for example, the Symphonic Fantasia and Fugue op. 57 premiered in February 1902 in Berlin. This was probably also because a high-profile presentation of the new work planned by Straube for June 1902 as part of the Tonkünstlerversammlung of the ADMV in Krefeld had to be cancelled at short notice due to the inadequate organ in the Stadthalle.2
Alexander Wilhelm Gottschalg, who attended the premiere by Hermann Dettmer on 11 May 1902 in Merseburg Cathedral, called op. 60 in the periodical Urania all in all “a m a s t e r w o r k i n i n v e n t i o n and c o n s t r u c t i o n” (review), but did not devote any further space to this new work, instead describing the Chorale Fantasia “Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme!” op. 52 Nr. 2 as the “h i g h p o i n t” of the concert. In his review of the music which was published earlier, the professed Reger enthusiast had formulated in admittedly familiar superlatives: “How the author of this gigantic sonata intends to intensify his productions even further can scarcely be imagined”, and added immediately: “The execution is not as colossally difficult as, for example, op. 57, this titan of all organ fantasias.” In further collective reviews, Reger’s first Munich organ work was treated comparatively cursorily, whereas Rudolf Maria Breithaupt, for example, in spite of Straube’s publicity to the contrary, spoke of a “chaotically wild surge and titanically striving lines” (review).
Critical voices about the work were heard following Karl Straube’s Reger concert on 4 March 1903 in the Leipzig Thomaskirche; Alexander Winterberger’s review in the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten pinpointed not only the composer (“a dull tangle of harmonies back and forth without aim or purpose”), but also the newly-appointed organist of the Thomaskirche (“somewhat too hasty tempo in the first movement”). But the review of opp. 57, 59 and 60 by Georg Göhler already published in September 1902 in Der Kunstwart must have struck Reger most harshly. Göhler called the ambitious composer “for the most part a composer in an old-fashioned mode”, and warned against “overestimating him”. From now on, like the whole editorial staff of Der Kunstwart, he was one of Reger’s avowed opponents.3 Reger was also hurt by Constantin Sander, the director of Leuckart-Verlag, who again sent him “one of those cards of lamentation” in December 1902, saying that “the demand for opp. 60 and 63 was constantly decreasing! […] I wrote back to him that I was sorry, that he had been so disappointed in me about my works and that as a result I would not offer anything more to the publishing house unless he arrived at a different opinion as regards my artistic strivings etc. etc.!” (Letter to Straube)4 Equally popular with both press and performers alike was the second movement of op. 60 (Invocation). From September 1902 this was also available as an arrangement for harmonium and, according to Hermann Wilske, there were “countless individual performances of it during Reger’s lifetime” 5.
2. Op. 73
When the Variations and Fugue in F sharp minor on an Original Theme op. 73 was published in February 1904, the polarization amongst Reger critics “between polemic and apologia” 6 had already reached fever pitch. First and foremost amongst the unquestioning supporters, which included both performers and journalists amongst the organists, was Walter Fischer, organist at the Neue Garnisonkirche in Berlin and performer of the premiere of op. 73. With this work he regarded Reger as being “at the peak of his indescribably brilliant creative output”. (review) A detailed article published in 1905 by the Essen organist Gustav Beckmann on Reger’s organ works, which concluded with a paragraph on op. 73 and the remark “Bach’s organ compositions constitute the Old Testament of the art for us, and those by Max Reger the New Testament!” 7, may have directly provoked a backlash.
The harmony in particular opened up controversial perspectives in reviews of the work: where Fischer, full of wonder, heard “variations clad in wonderful harmonies”, alternating “with others in which the delicate theme becomes a defiant, stubborn titan” (review), Ludwig Wuthmann detects “a formal churning in harmonic sequences with the most alienating effects possible” and advised: “‘as far as this and no further’ in his own interest” (review). In at least two detailed reviews, both in fact written some time after the work appeared, the concept of atonality is finally also mentioned: Roderich von Mojsisovics talked in 1906 impartially of the “atonal” spheres of the Introduzione, the analysis of which he recommended “most warmly to those enthusiasts of harmony”. (review) By comparison, two years later, Arthur Liebscher described with aesthetic uneasiness a theme running “harmonically as if on stilts”, which he similarly declared to be of “atonal character” in the later variations.8
The unusually long period of over a year between the publication and first performance of Opus 73 may have been because for performers, as Walter Fischer admitted, there were “completely new problems to solve both technically and musically” 9. Fischer, to whom Reger sent a copy of the work straight after publication (see Postcard dated 5 February 1904), only ventured to give the premiere of the work on 1 March 1905 in the Neue Garnisonkirche and drew admiration for the “great diversity of the tone colors which he wrested from the organ, which has just two manuals and is not very large” (review by Paul Schnyder in the Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung). Karl Straube, who had the opportunity to practice the piece beginning in December 1903 from a specially produced preliminary proof (see Opus 73 – Publication), postponed his performance at least twice.10 When he finally presented the work in the Leipzig Thomaskirche two days after Fischer’s premiere, he played it both at the beginning and the end of the program. Reger was appalled by Straube’s pedagogical suggestion, for he feared “a terrific cry of rage and the people will all run out!” (Postcard dated 25 February 1905 to Straube)11 His forebodings seem to have been confirmed: only Arnold Schering recommended emulating Straube’s contribution “to general artistic education” at the introduction to “Reger’s organ artistry, in its wealth of ideas of overwhelming effect” (review), whereas according to Arthur Smolian – declared shortly before by Reger himself as one of the targets of his Schafe-Affe-Sonate op. 7212 – “the delirious music of the terrible organ opus 73 […] will certainly disgust not only the uncomprehending […] on first hearing for once and for all” (Review). Carl Kipke’s remark in the Musikalisches Wochenblatt, that “the piece could just as well be shortened by a half, or last half an hour longer without any essential displacement of the inner structure of the work to speak of” (review), also reflects the problems of orientation with regard to harmony and form which op. 73 caused after its first tonal impressions.
3. Op. 92
The Suite in G minor op. 92, presented by the publisher Otto Forberg with the promotional description “easy to play”, received only sporadic notice in the music press, as it was regarded as of lesser interest. The earliest known performance, given by Arthur Egidi on 19 March 1907 in the Apostel-Paulus-Kirche in Berlin, was only reviewed by the music critic Max Chop in the – and he did not mince his words: “it is difficult to imagine anything more agonized, or more directly boring in effect, than the Suite op. 92. Disconnected fragments of few measures, combinations of little tricks some with affected ugly harmonies without any unifying idea, the titles of the individual movements not once taking into account their contents.” (review) The musicologist Hugo Leichtentritt appeared somewhat more lenient in his review of the music in the Signale für die Musikalische Welt (“all in all a splendid piece”); even he, however, considered “some themes” to be “lightweight” and described the Fugue (No. II), for example, as “a spirited piece indeed, but nevertheless one which can only be understood as austere”.
By comparison, op. 92 was evaluated in the essay Max Reger als Orgelkomponist, which Bruno Weigl published in 1909 in the specialist journal Die Orgel. Weigl saw that in this Suite, Reger had “already achieved the objective of his artistic wrestling” and that the characteristics of his personal style were combined “in a clear, vivid image, not difficult to interpret even for the general public”. At the center of his analytical observations stood the organic motifs of the work, but there was also the “lack of conciseness” in the thematic formation as its lamented drawback. (review)
4. Op. 127
Bruno Weigl’s detailed examination of the rather modestly-dimensioned op. 92 (see above) may have been due to the lack of new, large-scale organ works which organists expected, and indeed eagerly awaited, from Reger after op. 73. “But I know for sure […], the time will come when once again a few ripe fruits of his genius will fall into the hands of organists” 13, Walter Fischer wrote, almost imploringly in 1910.
When Reger finally composed another major work for this instrument with his Introduction, Passacaglia and Fugue in E minor op. 127, the illustrious occasion of the premiere – the dedication of the Jahrhunderthalle in Breslau – ensured that the work would be widely reviewed in the daily and specialist press. In reviews of both the music, and concert performances, critical voices predominated; in particular, the accusation of harmonic and formal boundlessness was expressed in similar fashion to earlier complaints about his op. 73. So, for example, Bernhard Paumgartner wrote in the music periodical Der Merker: “[…] in incessant intensifications, bizarre mixtures of harmony pile up against each other, melt into each other, dissolve, apparently without logic and without aim like eerie summer clouds pregnant with thunder; one waits with longing for lightning, thunder, relief, rain, anything which clears the way in this, the irrevocable, steady, threatening, but the high hopes are in vain, incessantly the clouds pile up against each other, interweave, melt away, dissolve, until suddenly the usual fff major concluding triad powerfully confirms a key in which we have never been in previously” (review). In response to the Breslau performance, Paul Riesenfeld complained about the “cold arithmetic of notes” (review) and Paul Mittmann even about the “aural atrocity”. The latter summed up: “So Max Reger’s op. 127, which hopefully won’t be given the title ‘the Breslau Passacaglia and Fugue with Introduction’, has become an occasional work on a par with the greatness of the huge organ only in the refinement of its technical construction, but not in the beauty of its sound.” (review)
According to concurring reports, the premiere lasted forty minutes.14 Ernst Neufeldt speculated about the possible effects of the performance venue on Straube’s choice of tempi: “Ultimately the space led to slower tempi, because the player could only hear himself with difficulty and with a delay. I can scarcely believe that Straube would otherwise have taken some of the tempi, particularly those on the first evening [Bach concert], as exceedingly slowly as they were here.” (review) When Straube played opus 127 six weeks later in Berlin, Arnold Ebel in the Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung referred to the “‘ethereal’ parts of the work”, which “were certainly shown to their best advantage in the closed space of the atmospheric Garnisonkirche better than in the huge space of the Breslau Festhalle”. (Review)
5. Op. 135b
Despite the rather mixed reception of the Introduction, Passacaglia and Fugue in E minor op. 127, Reger’s organ works had by then become an established part of the modern repertoire. So, Anton Wilhelm Leupold, organist at the St.-Petri-Kirche in Berlin, gave six consecutive Reger recitals beginning in October 1915 15 and received the composer’s thanks for this “unprecedented undertaking” (letter).16 When Reger died on 11 May 1916, the recognition of his organ music in the obituaries took up a correspondingly large amount of space. “It is simply impossible to imagine the history of music in this sphere without Max Reger. Here lies the starting point and at the same time the main focus of Reger’s art”,17 wrote Heinz Tiessen, for example. Even Walter Niemann, one of Reger’s harshest critics, spoke of the organ music as “without doubt the most abiding part of his output”.18
On 7 June 1916 the premiere of the Fantasia and Fugue in D minor op. 135b was given by Hermann Keller at a memorial service for Reger in the Markuskirche Stuttgart. Oswald Kühn adjudged: “The new work is important and shows the organ composer Reger at the highest level; the Fantasia bears its name with justification, both with regard to its form and its ideas and their musical exploitation; the composer spreads his wings wide, but the freedom of form is that of the master who dares to fly at a high altitude without losing himself in the infinite.” 19 With this, Keller pre-empted Hermann Dettmer, whom Reger had finally intended as performer of the premiere20 and who played the work four days later in the Stadthalle Hanover. Dettmer incorporated his Reger memorial concert into the series of “Orgelstunden” (organ hours), which he had given from December 1915 for musical edification during wartime to audience of up to 2,000.21 Further performances followed in the ensuing months by Arthur Egidi (in Königsberg, Halle, etc.) and Wolfgang Reimann. On the occasion of Reimann’s performance on 8 November 1916 in the Jerusalem-Kirche in Berlin, Heinz Tiessen discussed the work ironically, with reference to the dedication to Richard Strauss: “The Fantasia is a little disjointed and doesn’t really flow. The double fugue ties together a heavy-serious and a happy-bouncing theme to strange overall effect. In this, Ariadne-like, is an inner connection to Strauß intended?” 22 Adolf Weissmann perceived it differently: “The D minor fantasia and double fugue envelop us with their sweeping, melting, moving polyharmony”. (Review) The first printed edition was announced in publisher’s advertisements, but evidently not acknowledged by reviewers because of the many Reger obituaries at this time.
Although Dettmer’s performance of Opus 135b took place before what was presumably a large audience and was erroneously announced as a premiere, it was only mentioned in the local press, and with barely any reference to the program (K. A. in Hannoverscher Kurier, 13 June 1916, Abendausgabe, second sheet and anon., Orgelstunde in der Stadthalle, in Hannoversches Tageblatt, 15 June 1916, second supplement; both reviews quoted in Markus Michel, Fantasie und Fuge d-moll op. 135b von Max Reger, master’s thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, typescript, Munich 1997, p. 72f.).
About this Blogpost
Authors:
Alexander Becker, Stefan König, Christopher Grafschmidt, Stefanie Steiner-Grage
Translations:
Elizabeth Robinson (en)
Date:
4th May 2012
Tags:
Module IVol. I/3
Read more in RWA Online…
- –
Citation
Alexander Becker, Stefan König, Christopher Grafschmidt, Stefanie Steiner-Grage: RWA Volume I/3 – Fantasias and Fugues, Variations, Sonatas, Suites II; Early reception, in: Reger-Werkausgabe, www.reger-werkausgabe.de/rwa_post_00049, version 3.1.0-rc3, 20th December 2024.
Information
Links and references to texts and object entries of the RWA encyclopaedia are currently not all active. These will be successively activated.