MAX REGER AND KARL STRAUBE

Max Reger and Karl Straube

Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON University of 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 of 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 13- Max 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 vii List o f Tables xi Preface xiii Acknowledgements xv

Introduction 1

1 Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects of the Relationship, 1898-1916 9

Max Reger, the ‘potent genius’ 10 Karl Straube, the ‘scholarly intelligence’ 15 Reger, Straube, and the beginnings of collaboration 28

2 Reger’s Music and Straube’s Musicianship, 1898-1918 47

Questions and evidence 47 Straube’s musical sense and his playing of Reger 58 Issues of influence 97

3 Reger’s Music under Straube’s Editorship, 1903-1938 129

Johann Sebastian Bach: Schule des Triospiels (1903) 130 Max Reger: Drei Orgelstücke op. 59/7-9 (1912) 134 Max Reger: Präludien und Fugen (1919) 149 Max Reger: Phantasie über den Choral ‘Ein feste Burg ' op. 27 (1938) 151 Karl Matthaei: Vom Orgelspiel 156 ‘Lighter paper for lady cigarette smokers’: thoughts on a complete Reger edition 160

4 Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory and Church Music Institute, 1907-1948 185

Reger and Straube: relations to Leipzig 185 ‘The soul of the German people’: Straube and a nationalist organ repertory 198

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

Teaching and performance within Straube’s Leipzig curriculum 213 The Leipzig Conservatory organ and the implications of its history 219

Appendices

i Documented Performances of Reger’s Music at the Leipzig Conservatory, or at Concerts Sponsored by the Conservatory, 1905-1949 269

2 Documented Performances of Organ Music at the Leipzig Conservatory, or at Concerts Sponsored by the Conservatory, 1900-1950 285

3 Documented Performances of Reger’s Music at the Motetten of St. Thomas Church/Leipzig, 1903-1914 323

4 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

Bibliography 389 Index 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

2.3 Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Ein ’feste Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27 Straube autograph, mm. 20-26 72

2.4 Reger: Fantasy and Fugue in C minor op. 29 Straube autograph, mm. 40-44 (fugue subject and answer) 72

2.5 Reger: Fantasy and Fugue in C minor op. 29 Straube autograph, mm. 59-64 73

2.6 Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 80-83 (fugue subject) 74

2.7 Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf ruft uns die Stimme ’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 131-136 75

2.8 Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 154-159 75

2.9 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

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 82

2.13 Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Ein ’feste Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27 Straube autograph, mm. 116-117 83

2.14 Reger: Fantasy and Fugue in C minor op. 29 Straube autograph, mm. 134-136 83

2.15 Reger: First Sonata in F-sharp minor op. 33 Straube autograph,Passacaglia mm. 97-98 84

2.16 Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale 'Wie schön leucht ’t uns der Morgenstern ’ op. 40/1 Straube autograph, mm. 39-40 84

2.17 Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ’ op. 52/2 Straube autograph, mm. 96-97 84

2.18 Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Wachet auf 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 Bach/Reger/Straube: Schule des Triospiels Pedal passages with Straube’s pedaling indications 133

3.2 Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), mm. 1-10 137

3.3 Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 1-9 138

3.4 Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), mm. 27-35 140 List o f Figures ix

3.5 Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 27-34 141

3.6 Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), pedal mm. 16-18 144

3.7 Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 First edition (1901), mm. 18-23 146

3.8 Reger: Kyrie eleison op. 59/7 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 18-23 147

3.9 Reger: Gloria in excelsis op. 59/8 Edition Karl Straube (1912), mm. 22-31 148

3.10 Reger: Fantasy on the Chorale ‘Ein ’feste Burg ist unser Gott ’ op. 27 Edition Karl Straube (1938), mm. 1-7 152

4.1 Königliches Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Examination program of 17 March 1905, pp. 2-3 194

4.2 Königliches Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Examination program of 6 March 1906, p. 1 196

4.3 Königliches Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Examination program of 23 March 1906, p. 1 197

4.4 Karl Straube: Alte Meister des Orgelspiels, 1904 Original title page, with dedication ‘to the young master Max Reger’ 208

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

4.8 Landeskonservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig Diagram of Wilhelm Sauer Opus 1343 from February 1940 239 List of Tables

1.1 Weiden (Oberpfalz): Stadtpfarrkirche (Simultankirche, Michaeliskirche) 14

1.2 Berlin: Marienkirche Joachim Wagner 1719-1723 17

1.3 Berlin: Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche Wilhelm Sauer 1895 (Opus 660) 22

1.4 Berlin: Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche Wilhelm Sauer 1897 (additions to Opus 660) 24

1.5 Wesel am Rhein: Dom St. Willibrord Wilhelm Sauer 1895 (Opus 650) 30

2.1 Leipzig: Thomaskirche Wilhelm Sauer 1888 and 1902 (Opus 501); 1908 (Opus 1012) 53

2.2 Basel (Schweiz): Münster Friedrich Haas 1855 91

2.3 Heinrich Reimann: theoretical construction of a register crescendo 95

2.4 Bad Salzungen (Thüringen): Ev.-luth. Stadtkirche Wilhelm Sauer 1909 (Opus 1025), composition of the Walze 97

4.1 E. F. Walcker Orgelbau : Opus 491 for the Conservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig, 1887 Transcription of the contract 222

XI

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 of 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 aFrend, 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 of 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. Of 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 con- textualization, 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 of 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. Of 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 extensiveAufbruch der Klänge: Materialien, Bilder, Dokumente zu Orgelreform und Orgelkultur im 20. Jahrhundert 14 presents a representative collection of source materi­ als. Michael Kaufmann’s study Orgel und Nationalsozialismus 15 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. InDer 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. 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. 2. See e.g. Walter Fischer, Über die Wiedergabe der Orgel-Kompositionen Max Regers (Cöln: Tischer & Jagenberg, 1910). 3. Max Reger, Drei Orgelstücke op. 59 Nr. 7-9, ed. Karl Straube (Leipzig: C.F. Peters, 1912). 4. 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). 5. 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 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. 6. 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. 7. Wolfgang Stockmeier, ‘Karl Straube als Reger-Interpret,’ in Max Reger 1873-1973: Ein Symposion , ed. Klaus Röhring (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1974), 21-29. 8. Johannes Piersig, ‘So ging es allenfalls mit (VI) mit Thomaskantor Prof. D Dr. Karl Straube,’ Der Kirchenmusiker 29 (1978): 112-119. 9. Max Reger, Briefe an Karl Straube , Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes Elsa- Reger-Stiftung, ed. Susanne Popp, no. 10 (Bonn: Dümmler, 1986). 10. 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). 11. 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 inReger-Studien 5: Beiträge zur Regerforschung (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1993), 41-72. 12. Kathryn Eleanor Schenk, Heinrich Fleischer: The Organist’s Calling and the Straube Tradition (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1989). 13. Hermann Wilske, Max Reger: Zur Interpretation in seiner Zeit (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1995). 14. Roman Summereder, Aufbruch der Klänge: Materialien, Bilder, Dokumente zu Orgelre­ form und Orgelkultur im 20. Jahrhundert (Innsbruck: Edition Helbling, 1995). 15. Michael Gerhard Kaufmann, Orgel und Nationalsozialismus: Die ideologische Verein- nahmung 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). 16. Susanne Popp, ed., Der junge Reger: Briefe und Dokumente vor 1900 , Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger-Instituts Karlsruhe, no. 15 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 2000). 17. 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 of 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’sSuite 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 them-

9 10 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition selves with the kind of description offered already in 1907 by Gustav Robert- Tomow:

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 fifteen- year-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 Of 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 theSuite 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,’22 prob­ ably a reference to slider chests. Lindner stated that the instrument was built in the eighteenth century ‘by a master from “lower Germany”,’23 and he gave the following disposition:

Table 1.1 Weiden (Oberpfalz): Stadtpfarrkirche (Simultankirche, Michaeliskirche)

Hauptwerk

Left: Right: Pedalkoppel Subbaß 16’ Gedackt 4’ Octavbaß 8’ Hohlflöte 8’ Mixtur IV 2’ Quint 5 1/3’ Gedackt 8’ Gamba 8’ Octav 2’ Prinzipal 8’ Octav 4’

Oberwerk

Left: Right: Gedackt 4’ Salizional 8’ Flöte travers 8’ Geigenprinzipal 4’

Lindner added:

A manual coupler does not exist in this disposition. The coupling of Haupt- and Oberwerk had to be accomplished by sliding the keyboard of the latter, Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects of 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 of 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 Rie- mann’s discussion of organ action and registration in his 1888Katechismus 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 of 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 Rei- mann. 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 self- made 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 ord,... 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 self- taught’ 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 8’ Gedackt 8’ Cornet V (cl - c3) Quintadena 8’ Bordun 16’ Octav 4’ Viole di Gamba 8’ Rohrflöt 4’ Rohrflöt 8’ Octav 2’ Octav 4’ Waldflöt 2’ Spitzflöt 4’ Quinta 1 1/2’ Quinta 3’ Cimbel III 1’ Octav 2’ EchoV Scharf V 1 1/2’ Cimbel III 1’ Trompet 8’

Oberwerk (C. D - c3) Pedal (C,D-dl)

Principal 8’ Principal-Baß 16’ Quintadena 16’ Violon 16’ 18 Max Reger and Karl Straube: Perspectives on an Organ Performing Tradition

Gedackt 8’ Gembßhom 8’ Octav 4’ Quinta 6’ Fugara 4’ Octav 4’ Nassat 3’ Mixtur VI 2’ Octav 2’ Posaune 16’ Tertie “aus 2 fuß” Trompet 8’ Siefflöt 1’ Mixtur IV 1 1/2’ Vox humana 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 possible and requires a modified treatment. [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 anyway... [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-Kreuz- Kirche 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 collectionChoralvorspiele 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] Orgelvir- tuos) 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) Manual III (Schwellwerk, C - g3)

Principal (façade) 16’ Quintatön 16’ Bordun 16’ Lieblich Gedakt 16’ Principal (façade) 8’ Principal 8’ Geigenprincipal 8’ Gedakt 8’ Gedakt 8’ Konzertflöte 8’ Doppelflöte 8’ Quintatön 8’ Flûte harmonique 8’ Aeoline 8’ Quintatön 8’ Voix céleste 8’ Gemshom 8’ Schalmei 8’ Viola di Gamba 8’ Traversflöte 4’ Rohrflöte 4’ Quintatön 4’ Spitzflöte 4’ Praestant 4’ Fugara 4’ Viola 4’ Octave 4’ Nasard 2 2/3’ Piccolo 2’ Flautino 2’ Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916 23

Rausch-Quinte 2 2/3’+ 2’ Harm, aetherea III Cornett III-IV Cornett III Mixtur III Vox humana 8’ Scharf V Oboe 8’ Bombarde 16’ Trompette harm. 8’ Trompete 8’ Clarino 4’

Manual IIÍC - g3f Pedal (C- fl)

Principal (façade) 16’ Untersatz 32’ Gedakt 16’ Lieblich Gedakt 16’ Principal (façade) 8’ Subbaß 16’ Lieblich Gedakt 8’ Baßflöte 8’ Dolce 8’ Salicet-Baß 16’ Rohrflöte 8’ Dulciana 8’ Traversflöte 8’ Violon 16’ Spitzflöte 8’ Violoncello 8’ Salicional 8’ Principal-Baß 16’ Flauto dolce 4’ Principal-Baß 8’ Octav-Flöte 4’ Octave 4’ Gemshom 4’ Quintbaß 10 2/3’ Octave 4’ Gedaktquinte 5 1/3’ Zartflöte 2’ Terz 3 1/5’ Quinte 2 2/3’ Fagott 16’ Octave 2’ Posaune 16’ Cornett III Trompete 8’ Mixtur IV Clarino 4’ Cor anglais 8’ Tuba 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 ‘possessestubular pneumatic action 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 16’ (displaced from Manual III) Principal 8’ Spitzflöte 8’ Bourdon 8’ Vox humana 8’ (displaced from Manual III) Gamba 8’ Voix céleste 8’ Spitzflöte 4’ Octave 4’ Trompete 8’

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 Physhar- monica 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 without 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 Chicago [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 Rei- mann’s influential position as a music critic for theAllgemeine Musik- Zeitung, 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 I ÍC - ß l Manual III(C - ß . Schwellwerki

Principal 16’ Salicional 16’ Bordun 16’ Lieblich Gedackt 16’ Gamba 16’ Principal 8’ Principal 8’ Konzertflöte 8’ Hohlflöte 8’ Schalmei 8’ Viola di Gamba 8’ Lieblich Gedackt 8’ Doppelflöte 8’ Aeoline 8’ Gemshom 8’ Voix céleste 8’ Traversflöte 8’ Dulciana 8’ Quintatön 8’ Praestant 4’ Geigenprincipal 8’ Traversflöte 4’ Gedackt 8’ Violine 4’ Quinte 5 1/3 Gemshomquinte 2 2/3’ Octave 4’ Flautino 2’ Spitzflöte 4’ Harm, aetherea III Fugara 4’ Clarinette 8’ Rohrflöte 4’ Vox humana 8’ Rauschquinte II 2 2/3’, 2’ Groß-Cymbel 3 1/5’, 2 1/7’, 2’ Piccolo 2’ Mixtur V Scharf V Cornett III-V Trompete 16’ Trompete 8’

Manual II IC - ß i Pedal (C-dl)

Geigenprincipal 16’ Contrabaß 32’ Bordun 16’ Untersatz 32’ Principal 8’ Principal 16’ Rohrflöte 8’ Violon 16’ Salicional 8’ Subbaß 16’ Flûte harmonique 8’ Gemshom 16’ Spitzflöte 8’ Baßflöte 16’ Harmonika 8’ Quintbaß 10 2/3’ Gedackt 8’ Oktavbaß 8’ Dolce 8’ Violoncello 8’ Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916 31

Octave 4’ Gedackt 8’ Flöte 4’ Viola d’amour 8’ Gemshom 4’ Flöte 4’ Flauto dolce 4’ Cornett III Rauschquinte II 2 2/3’, 2’ Contraposaune 32’ Mixtur IV Posaune 16’ Cornett IV Trompete 8’ Fagott 16’ Clairon 4’ Tuba 8’ Oboë 8’

6 normal couplers Preset piston for reeds 1 octave coupler Rollschweller Preset pistons mf, f, ff for each manual 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).79 Fur­ thermore, the manual compass extended only to f3, the pedal to dl. 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 of the Relationship, 1898-1916 33

Details lebt und jedes Detail reizvoll gestaltet...* Robert-Tornow, Max Reger und Karl Straube , 24-25. 2. 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. 3. 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 monographMax 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). 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. That is, as Riemann understood musical style. Riemann’s cosmopolitan interests extended from Byzantine music through contemporary composition. 7. 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,’ inProceedings 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 ofLexicon his 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 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. 13. ‘(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. 14. ‘ ... die ihrem Zwecke nicht mehr völlig genügende Übungsorgel.’ Lindner, Max Reger, 38. 15. ‘ ... 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. 16. ‘ ... erst verschiedene Messen und endlich die ganze katholische Orgelliturgie beim Hochamt und in der Vesper... * Ibid., 39. 17. ‘ ... zu den Bachfugen Schumanns und Stücken von Bach, Mendelssohn und Liszt ...* Ibid. 18. ‘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. 19. ‘ ... von immens grundlegender Bedeutung ... ’ Ibid., 40. 20. ‘ ... 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 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. 21. 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 numberO 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 thePhantasie 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. 22. ‘ ... 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. 23. ‘ ... von einem Meister aus ‘Niederteutschland’ ... ’ Ibid., 40. 24. ‘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. 25. 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 37

to nineteenth-century standards, at which time the pitch was lowered 1/4 tone from its eighteenth-century (and earlier?) status. 26. Hugo Riemann, Katechismus der Orgel (Orgellehre), Max Hesses illustrierte Katechis­ men no. 4 (Leipzig: Hesse, 1888). 27. ‘ ... beeinflußt durch den Klang der alten Orgeln ... ’ Letter of 29 November 1946 to Fritz Stein. Karl Straube, Briefe eines Thomaskantors , ed. Wilibald Gurlitt and Hans- Olaf 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. 28. Hartmann, Karl Straube und seine Schule, 31 passim. 29. 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’ inDie 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. 30. ‘ ... sprach fließend deutsch, französisch, italienisch, sie las die Bibel im griechischen und hebräischen Urtext.’ Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 4. 31. 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. 32. 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. 34. Karl Straube, ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis,’ 85. Reimann’s name is the one most consis­ tently identified with Straube in all source materials. 35. 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, ‘Reha- bilitionsgesuch 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. 36. ‘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.’ 37. 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. 38. ‘ ... 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. 39. ‘ ... einer der volkstümlichsten und für seine Zeit fortschrittlichsten Orgelspieler Ber­ lins.’ Ibid., 6. 40. ‘Den ersten Orgelunterricht erhielt Karl Straube durch Otto Dienel auf dessen alter Wag­ ner-Orgel in der Marienkirche.’ Ibid. 41. See Heinz Herbert Steves, ‘ Der Orgelbauer Joachim Wagner, ’Archiv für Musikforschung Reger, Straube, and the Organ: Aspects o f the Relationship, 1898-1916 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. 42. ‘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 veränderte Behandlung ermöglicht und erfordert. [K] Dass die von mir vorgeschlagenen technischen Reformen auch nurnach irgendeiner Seite h i n die Zwecke der Orgel, soweit diese kirchlich sind, stören oder gar profani- ren 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 Bedeutung für 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. 43. 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. 44. ‘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. 45. ‘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 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’sArchives 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). 46. ‘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. 47. ‘ ... durch den Umgang mit Heinrich Reimann, dann aber auch durch die Lektüre von Spittas Bach-Biographie.’ Wolgast,Karl Straube: eine Würdigung , 11. 48. ‘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-Kreuz- Kirche/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. 49. 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. 50. 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 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. 51. Wolgast called Straube Reimanns ‘ständiger Vertreter.’ Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdigung, 11. See the announcement of Straube as Reimann’s substitute inAllgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 14/21 August 1896, 458. 52. Heinrich Reimann, ‘Die neue Sauer’sche Orgel in der Kaiser Wilhelm-Gedächtnisskirche zu Charlottenburg-Berlin,’Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 30 August 1895,434. 53. ‘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. 54. ‘ ... besitzt Röhren-Pneumatik, 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 inAllgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 9 January 1891, 18. 55. Heinrich Reimann, ‘Die Orgel in der Kaiser Wilhelm-Gedächtnisskirche zu Charlotten- burg-Berlin,’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 19 March 1897,178-179. 56. ‘ ... eine überaus schön gelungene Physharmonica 16’ (nach dem Muster der Freiburger) und eine kräftige 8’-Flöte... ’Ibid., 179. 57. ‘ ... 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. 58. ‘ ... unter dem größtmöglichen Winddrucke ... * Ibid. 59. ‘ ... 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 Eddy, ein Schüler unseres AltmeistersHaupt).* Rei- mann, ‘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 Wagner- Ähnlichkeiten 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 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. 68. 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. 69. 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. 70. ‘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, Der junge Reger, 147-148. 71. ‘ ... 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 eg erAllgemeine Musik-Zeitung, 1 July 1893, 375. 72. ‘ ... 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. 73. Max Reger, O Traurigkeit, o Herzeleid, Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 21 (1894). In April 1894, Reger published another chorale prelude,Komm, süßer Tod, in Augener’sMonthly 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. 74. ‘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 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. 75. ‘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. 76. 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. 77. 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’sSonatas 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. 78. ‘ ... auf einer leider nicht ausreichenden Orgel.’ Wolgast, Karl Straube: eine Würdi­ gung, 12. 79. On the Wesel organ, see Monatsschrift für Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst 1 (1896), 211 ff.; Karl Dreimüller, ‘Karl Straubes Sauer-Orgel in Wesel,’ inStudien 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. 80. ‘ ... 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. 81. 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. 82. 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 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. 83. 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. 84. 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. 85. Dreimüller, ‘Karl Straubes Sauer-Orgel,’ 68. The organ did not receive an electric blower motor until 1912. 86. ‘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. References Albrecht, Christoph. Interpretationsfragen: Probleme der kirchenmusikalischen Aufführungspraxis von Johann Walter bis Max Reger (1524-1916). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1982. Anderson, Christopher. Reger, Straube, and the Leipzig School’s Tradition of Organ Pedagogy: 1898- 1948. Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1999. Andraschke, Peter , ed. Der Reger-Schüler Fritz Lubrich (1888-1971). Schriften der Stiftung Haus Oberschlesien no. 6. Dülmen: Laumann, 1989. Berghahn, Volker Rolf. Imperial Germany 1871-1914: Economy, Society, Culture, and Politics. Providence and Oxford: Berghahn, 1994. Bittmann, Antonius. Negotiating Past and Present: Max Reger and Fin-de-siècle Modernisms. Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, 2000. Brand, Erna. Max Reger im Elternhaus. Munich: Verlag Albert Langen-Georg Müller, 1938. Braungart, Richard. Freund Reger: Erinnerungen. Regensburg: Bosse, 1949. Cadenbach, Rainer. Max Reger und seine Zeit. Laaber: Laaber Verlag, 1991. Day, Timothy. A Century of Recorded Music: Listening to Musical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Dienel, Otto. Die moderne Orgel: ihre Einrichtung, ihre Bedeutung für die Kirche und ihre Stellung zu Sebastian Bach’s Orgelmusik. 2nd ed. Berlin: Hannemann, 1903. Eggebrecht, Hans Heinrich. Die Orgelbewegung. Veröffentlichungen der Walcker-Stiftung für Orgelwissenschaftliche Forschung, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht, no. 1. Stuttgart: Musikwissenschaftliche Verlags-Gesellschaft, 1967. Erinnerungen und Beiträge persönlicher Reger-Freunde: Festschrift für Elsa Reger anlässlich ihres 80. Geburtstages am 25. Oktober 1950. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes no. 2. Bonn: Dümmler, 1950. Falkenberg, Hans-Joachim. Der Orgelbauer Wihelm Sauer 1831-1916. Leben und Werk. Lauffen: Orgelbau-Fachverlag Rensch, 1990. Falkenberg, Hans-Joachim. Die Orgelwerkstatt Wilhelm Sauer 1910-1995. Kleinblittersdorf: Musikwissenschaftliche Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH, 1998. Forner, Johannes. Hochschule für Musik und Theater Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy Leipzig: 150 Jahre Musikhochschule. Leipzig: Verlag Kunst und Touristik, 1992. Forner, Johannes. ed. Die Gewandhauskonzerte zu Leipzig 1781-1981. Leipzig: VEB Deutscher Verlag für Musik, 1981. Gay, Peter. Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.390 Goltz, Maren. Das Kirchenmusikalische Institut: Spuren einer wechselvollen Geschichte. Dokumentation der Ausstellung ‘Das Kirchenmusikalische Institut’ im Rahmen der Wandelausstellung zum Bach-Jahr 2000 in Leipzig. Leipzig: Hochschule für Musik und Theater ‘Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy,’ 2001. Haas, Joseph. Zwei Reden: Max Reger. Bonn: Dümmler, 1949. Hagmann, Peter. Das Welte-Mignon-Klavier, die Welte-Philharmonie-Orgel und die Anfänge der Reproduktion von Musik. Bern: Peter Lang, 1984. Hartmann, Günther. Die Orgelwerke von Sigfrid Karg-Elert. Ph.D. diss., Rheinische Friedrich- Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 1985. Hartmann, Günther. Karl Straube und seine Schule: ‘Das Ganze ist ein Mythos.’ Orpheus- Schriftenreihe zu Grundfragen der Musik, ed. Martin Vogel, no. 59. Bonn: Verlag für systematische Musikwissenschaft GmbH, 1991. Hartmann, Günther. Karl Straube: ein Altgardist der NSDAP. Lahnstein: Privately printed, 1994. Hehemann, Max. Max Reger: eine Studie über moderne Musik mit einem Bildnis und vielen Notenbeispielen. Munich: Piper, 1911. Hehemann, Max. Max Reger: Ein Leben in Musik. Munich: 1911. Heusgen, Rudolf. Der junge Max Reger und seine Orgelwerke. Ph.D. diss., Albert-Ludwigs- Universität/Freiburg i. Br. Schramberg: Gatzer und Hahn, 1935. Jinkertz, Willi. Mit Reger an zwei Flügeln. Düsseldorf: Die Faehre, 1951. Kalkoff, Artur. Das Orgelschaffen Max Regers im Lichte der deutschen Orgelerneuerungsbewegung. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1950. Karg-Elert, Sigfrid. Die Kunst des Registrierens. Berlin: Carl Simon, 1911. Kaufmann, Michael Gerhard. Orgel und Nationalsozialismus: Die Ideologische Vereinnahmung des Instrumentes im ‘Dritten Reich.’ Schriftenreihe der Walcker-Stif-tung für Orgelwissenschaftliche Forschung, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht, no. 5. Kleinblittersdorf: Musikwissenschaftliche Verlags- Gesellschaft mbH, 1997. Keller, Hermann. Reger und die Orgel. Max Reger: eine Sammlung von Studien aus dem Kreise seiner Persönlichen Schüler, ed. Richard Würz, vol. 6. Munich: Halbreiter, 1923. Knick, Bernhard , ed. St. Thomas zu Leipzig: Schule und Chor. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1963. Krieg, Gustav A. Die gottesdienstliche Musik als theologisches Problem, dargestellt an der kirchenmusikalischen Erneuerung nach dem ersten Weltkrieg. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1990. Kühner, Hans , ed. Neues Max-Reger-Brevier. Basel: Amerbach, 1948. Lieberwirth, Steffenh. Die Gewandhaus-Orgeln. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1986. Lindner, Adalbert. Max Reger: Ein Bild seines Jugendlebens und künstlerischen Werdens. Stuttgart: Engelhom, 1921. Lindner, Adalbert. Max Reger: Ein Bild seines Jugendlebens und künstlerischen Werdens. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Engelhom, 1923. Lorenzen, Johannes. Max Reger als Bearbeiter Bachs. Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger-Institutes no. 2. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1982.391 Marsop, Paul. Neue Kämpfe: Zweite Reihe der Studienblätter eines Musikers. Munich: Müller, 1913. Matthaei, Karl. Vom Orgelspiel: Eine kurzgefaßte Würdigung der künstlerisch orgelgemäßen Interpretationsweise und ihrer klanglichen Ausdrucksmittel. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1949. Metzler, Wolfgang. Romantischer Orgelbau in Deutschland. Lugwigsburg: Verlag E. F. Walcker, 1965. Moser, Hans Joachim. Die evangelische Kirchenmusik in Deutschland. Berlin/Darmstadt: Merseburger, 1953. Moser, Hans Joachim. Orgelromantik: Ein Gang durch Orgelfragen von vorgestern und übermorgen. Ludwigsburg: Verlag E. F. Walcker, 1961. Muschg, Walter. Gespräche mit Hans HennyJahnn. Frankfurt/M.: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1967. Oehme, Fritz. Handbuch über ältere, neuere und neueste Orgelwerke im Königreiche Sachsen. 4 vols. Dresden: 1889-97; reprint, Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1978. Popp, Susanne , ed. Der junge Reger: Briefe und Dokumente vor 1900. Schriftenreihe des Max- Reger-Instituts Karlsruhe 25. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 2000. Poppen, Hermann Meinhard. Max Reger. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1917. Ramin, Charlotte. Günther Ramin: Ein Lebensbericht. Freiburg i. Br.: Atlantis, 1958. Ramin, Charlotte. Weggefährten im Geiste Johann Sebastian Bachs: Karl Straube, Günther Ramin-zwei Thomaskantoren 1918-1956. Darmstadt: Kuhsei, 1981. Ramin, Günther. Gedanken zur Klärung des Orgelproblems. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1929. Reger, Elsa. Mein Leben mit und für Max Reger. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1930. Riemann, Hugo. Katechismus der Orgel (Orgellehre). 3rd ed. Leipzig: Hesse, 1910. Riemann, Hugo. Vademecum der Phrasierung. 3rd ed. Berlin: Hesse, 1912. Robert-Tornow, Gustav. Max Reger und Karl Straube. Göttingen: Otto Hapke, 1907; reprint, Leipzig: Poeschel und Trepte, 1929. Rodenberg, Uta. Hermann Deitmers künstlerisches Wirken: eine Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner Verbindung mit Max Reger und der Uraufführung von dessen Fantasie und Fuge op. 135b durch ihn. Thesis, Hochschule für Musik und Theater Hannover, 1989. Scheffler, Christian. Die Restaurierung der Sauer-Orgel in der Thomaskirche zu Leipzig. Wiesbaden: Friedhelm Gerecke, n.d. Schenk, Kathryn Eleanor. Heinrich Fleischer: The Organist’s Calling and the Straube Tradition. Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1989. Schmid-Lindner, August. Ausgewählte Schriften. Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1973. Schneider, Michael. Die Orgelspieltechnik des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland. Regensburg: Bosse, 1941. Schreiber, Ottmar and Ingeborg . Max Reger in seinen Konzerten. 3 vols. Veröffent lichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa-Reger-Stiftung no. 7. Bonn: Dümmler, 1981.392 Schultz, Helmut , ed. Die Karl-Straube-Orgel des Musikwissenschaftlichen Instituts und Instrumenten-Museums der Universität Leipzig. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1930. Schweitzer, Albert. Deutsche und französische Orgelbaukunst und Orgelkunst. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1906. Schweitzer, Albert. Zur Diskussion über Orgelbau (1914). Ed. Erwin R. Jacobi. Documenta Organologica no. 1. Berlin: Merseburger, 1977. Schweitzer, Albert. Deutsche und Französische Orgelbaukunst und Orgelkunst: Reprint des Nachworts von 1927. Forward by Hermann J. Busch. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1987. Sievers, Gerd. Die Grundlagen Hugo Riemanns bei Max Reger. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1967. Slonimsky, Nicolas. Music Since 1900. 5th ed. New York: Schirmer, 1994. Stein, Fritz. Max Reger. Potsdam: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion, 1939. Stein-Czerny, Margarete. Stunden mit Max Reger. Berlin: Bote und Bock, 1955. Steiner, Dirk. Hans Henny Jahnns Dramaturgie im Licht aktueller Inszenierungen seiner Stücke. Thesis, Philipps-Universität Marburg, 1995. Summereder, Roman. Aufbruch der Klänge: Materialien, Bilder, Dokumente zu Orgelreform und Orgelkultur im 20. Jahrhundert. Innsbruck: Helbling, 1995. Töpfer, Johann Gottlob. Die Theorie und Praxis des Orgelbaues. Ed. Max Allihn. 2nd ed. Weimar: Voigt, 1888; reprint Knuf, 1972. Voge, Richard. Fritz Heitmann: das Leben eines deutschen Organisten. Berlin: Merseburger, 1963. Wagner, Rüdiger. Der Orgelreformer Hans Henny Jahnn. Stuttgart: Musikwissenschaftliche Verlags- Gesellschaft mbH, 1970. Weigl, Bruno. Handbuch der Orgelliteratur. Leipzig: Leuckart, 1931. Wilske, Hermann. Max Reger: Zur Interpretation in seiner Zeit. Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger- Instituts no. 11. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1995. Wolgast, Johannes. Karl Straube: Eine Würdigung seiner Musikerpersönlichkeit anlässlich seiner 25jährigen Tätigkeit in Leipzig. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1928. Wulf, Joseph. Musik im Dritten Reich: Eine Dokumentation. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963. Ameln, Konrad. ‘Kirchenmusik in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus.’ Review of Karl Straube und seine Schule, by Günther Hartmann. In Musik und Kirche 62 (1992): 155-156.393 Anderson, Christopher. ‘Walter Fischer’s Comments on the Playing of Reger’s Organ Music.’ The Organ Yearbook 25 (1995): 123-136. Anderson, Christopher. ‘Karl Straube as Organist: Defining and Evaluating the Evidence.’ The Royal College of Organists Yearbook 1999-2000, 128-138. London: The Royal College of Organists, 1999. Anderson, Christopher. ‘The “Bach Problem” and Karl Straube’s Early Years.’ The Organ Yarbook 29 (2000): 137-156. Anderson, Christopher. ‘Die Regernoten des amerikanischen Straube-Schülers George Lillich: Zur Regerpädagogik der Straube-Schule in den Jahren 1929 bis 1930.’ In Reger-Studien 6: Musikalische Moderne und Tradition, 345-364. Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger-Instituts no. 13. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 2000. Anderson, Christopher. ‘The Organ of the Leipzig Conservatory 1887-1944.’ The Organ Yearbook 30 (2001): 149-179. Auler, Wolfgang. ‘Korrectur der Musikgeschichte im Lehrplan? Zu Helmut Walchas Aufsatz ‘Regers Orgelschaffen kritisch betrachtet’.’ Musik und Kirche 22 (1952): 56-57. Auler, Wolfgang. ‘Die Anfänge der Orgelbewegung in Berlin und die Krise des Jahres 1933.’ Musik und Kirche 35 (1965): 126-133. Bambauer, Klaus. ‘Karl Straube und Max Reger.’ In Heimatkalender Kreis Wesel 1990, 65-71. Kleve: 1989. Baresel, Alfred. ‘Max Reger als Lehrmeister am Leipziger Konservatorium (1907-1916).’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 9 (March 1959): 8-11. Beck, Otto. ‘Karl Straube.’ Zeitschrift für Musik 87 (16 June 1920): 165-166. Beckmann, Gustav. ‘Nochmals der I. Rheinisch-Westfälische Organistentag.’ Urania 57(1900): 49-50. Beckmann, Gustav. ‘Wie muß ein guter Registerschweller eingerichtet sein?’ Urania 66 (1909): 25-27. Beckmann, Gustav. ‘Max Reger über Orgel, Orgelkomposition und -spiel.’ Neue Musik-Zeitung 14 (1925): 329-330. Berchem, Axel. ‘Max Regers Weidener Orgelstil und seine Grenzen in der heutigen Praxis.’ In Reger- Studien 2: Neue Aspekte der Regerforschung, ed. Susanne Shigihara , 115-134. Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger-Instituts no. 5. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1986. Berchem, Axel. Review of Karl Straube und seine Schule, by Günther Hartmann. In Der Kirchenmusiker 43 (1992): 38-39. Berchem, Axel. Review of Karl Straube und seine Schule, by Günther Hartmann. In Der Kirchenmusiker 44 (1993): 35. Bernstein, Walter Heinz et al. ‘Kirchenmusik in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus.’ Musik und Kirche 62 (1992): 155-156 Beyerlein, Franz Adam. ‘Karl Straube.’ Zeitschrift für Musik 97 (November 1930): 889-897. Beyerlein, Franz Adam. ‘Karl Straubes Leben.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 364-385. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943.394 Beyerlein, Franz Adam. ‘Kleine Rückschau.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 131-147. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Binninger, Kurt. ‘Die Welte-Philharmonie- Orgel.’ Acta Organologica 19 (1986): 179-208. Blessinger, Karl. ‘Fünfzig Jahre Kgl. Musikschule und Akademie der Tonkunst.’ In Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen der Akademie der Tonkunst in München 1874-1924, 5-11. Munich: Selbstverlag der Akademie der Tonkunst, 1924. Blessinger, Karl. ‘Max Reger und die Orgel.’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 2 (December 1954): 7-11. Blindow, Martin. ‘Regers und Straubes Beziehungen zu Münster: Zwei unbekannte Reger-Briefe.’ Musik und Kirche 65 (1995): 129-133. Böhm, Hans. ‘Karl Straube: Ein Gedenkblatt zu seinem 20. Todestage.’ Musica 24 (1970): 173. Böhm, Hans. ‘Der elfte Nachfolger Bachs: Gedenkblatt für Karl Straube.’ Musica 27 (1973): 51-52. Böhm, Hans. ‘Karl Straube 1873-1973.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 24 (1973): 166-167. Böhm, Hans. ‘Karl Straube zum “Hundertsten”.’ Musik und Gesellschaft 23 (January 1973): 63-64. Bomefeld, Helmut. ‘Walchas Reger-Verdict kritisch betrachtet.’ Musik und Kirche 22(1952): 49-52. Bosch, Werner. ‘Wie Regers Orgelspiel für die Nachwelt festgehalten wurde.’ Mitteilungen des Max- Reger-Institutes 14 (December 1963): 16-19. Bredenbach, Ingo. ‘Zur Agogik in der Orgelmusik des 19. Jahrhunderts dargestellt an einem Choralvorspiel Max Regers (op. 67, 25).’ Musik und Kirche 66 (1996): 234-243. Brusniak, Friedhelm. Review of Karl Straube und seine Schule, by Günther Hartmann. In Musik und Kirche 62 (1992): 154-155. Burns, Richard C , and Wayne Leupold. ‘The Use of Recordings in Establishing Performance Practices for 19th/20th Century Organ Music.’ Association for Recorded Sound Collections Journal 7 (1976): 32-46. Busch, Hermann J. ‘Max Reger und die Orgel seiner Zeit.’ Musik und Kirche 43 (1973): 63-73. Busch, Hermann J. ‘Zur Situation des europäischen Orgelbaus am Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts.’ Ars Organi 46 (February 1975): 2080-2086. Busch, Hermann J. ‘Ein Verzeichnis der gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunders in Deutschland ansässigen Orgelbauer.’ Acta Organologica 12 (1978): 207-220. Busch, Hermann J. ‘Zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt: Zu Orgelbau, Orgelspiel und Orgelkomposition in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert.’ In Mundus Organorum-Festschrift Walter Supper, ed. Alfred Reichling , 63-91. Berlin: Merseburger, 1978. Busch, Hermann J. ‘Katholische Orgelmusik des 19./20. Jahrhunderts im Spannungsfeld zwischen künstlerischer Freiheit und liturgischer Bindung.’ Musica Sacra 103 (1983): 453-463.395 Busch, Hermann J. ‘Die Orgelmusik der Schüler Max Regers.’ Ars Organi 34 (1986): 200-202; and 35 (1987): 93-98. Busch, Hermann J. ‘Einige Probleme des Regerspiels.’ In Zur Interpretation der Orgelmusik Max Regers, ed. Hermann J. Busch , 51-63. Kassel: Merseburger, 1988. Busch, Hermann J. ‘Max Regers Orgelwelt.’ In Zur Interpretation der Orgelmusik Max Regers, ed. Hermann J. Busch , 6-28. Kassel: Merseburger, 1988. Busch, Hermann J. ‘Karl Straube spielt Regers Choralfantasie Wachet auf op. 52 Nr. 2.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 40 (1989): 97-100. Busch, Hermann J. ‘Max Regers Orgelwerke auf Sauer-Orgeln.’ In Erlöserkirche Bad Homburg v. d. Höhe, 4. - 11. Juli 1993: Festschrift zur Einweihung der erweiterten und restaurierten Sauerorgel von 1908, 72-103. Bad Homburg: 1993. Busch, Hermann J. ‘Die Wilhelm-Sauer-Orgel des Berliner Domes.’ Ars Organi 41 (1993): 231-238. Busoni, Ferruccio. ‘Ferruccio Busoni an Karl Straube.’ Musica 23 (1969): 492. ‘Closing Chord: Karl Straube.’ Hinrichsen ‘s Musical Yearbook 7 (1952): 91-94. David, Johann Nepomuk. ‘Der Thomaskantor.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 12-17. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Deetjen, Gottfried. ‘Johann Sebastian Bach - Karl Straube.’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 41 (8 May 1914): 662. ‘Dispositionen der im Konservatorium zu Leipzig befindlichen Orgeln.’ Der Kirchenchor 33 (1922): 85- 86. Doormann, Ludwig. ‘Das Vermächtnis Karl Straubes als Bachspieler.’ Musik und Kirche 43 (1973): 73- 77. Dorfmüller, Joachim. ‘Heinrich Reimann: Zeitgenosse und Vorbild Max Regers.’ Musik und Kirche 51 (1981): 128-132. Dreimüller, Karl. ‘Karl Straubes Sauer-Orgel in Wesel.’ In Studien zur Musikgeschichte des Rheinlandes II: Karl Gustav Feilerer zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Herbert Drux , Klaus Wolfgang Niemöller and Walter Thoene , 55-70. Beiträge zur rheinischen Musikgeschichte no. 52. Cologne: Arno Volk, 1962. Drengemann, Heinz-Rüdiger. “Reger neobarock’ - Antwort auf die Stellungnahme von Heinz Lohmann.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 25 (1974): 58-61. Dürr, Alfred. ‘Um das Orgelschaffen Max Regers: Vor dem Tribunal der Orgelbewegung.’ Musik und Kirche 22 (1952): 98-104. Ebbeke, Klaus. ‘Max Reger als Bearbeiter Bachscher Werke.’ Musik und Kirche 51 (1981): 121-128. Ebel, Arnold. ‘Zur Registrierkunst des Orgelspiels.’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 42 (15 October 1915): 479-80 and 491-492. Eggebrecht, Hans Heinrich. ‘Einleitung des Herausgebers.’ In Wilibald Gurlitt: Musikgeschichte und Gegenwart I, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht , vii-xix. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1966. Engländer, Richard. ‘Max Reger.und Karl Straube.’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 1 (March 1954): 8-14.396 Feilerer, Karl Gustav. ‘Das Reger-Bild von Joseph Haas.’ In Reger-Studien 1: Festschrift für Ottmar Schreiber, ed. Günther Massenkeil and Susanne Popp , 127-133. Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger- Instituts no. 1. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1978. Fischer, Jörg. ‘Geschichtlichkeit - Kulturkritik - Autonomieverlust: Bewegungen um die Orgel in der Weimarer Republik.’ In Orgel und Ideologie: Bericht über das 5. Colloquium der Walcker-Stiftung für orgelwissenschaftliche Forschung 5.-7. Mai 1983 in Göttweig, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht , 133- 157. Murrhardt: Musikwissenschaftliche Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH, 1984. Fischer, Walter. Review of 52 leicht ausführbare Vorspiele für die Orgel zu den gebräuchlichsten evangelischen Chorälen op. 67, by Max Reger. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 30 (5 June 1903): 396- 397. Fischer, Walter. Review of Zehn Stücke für die Orgel op. 69, by Max Reger. In Allgemeine Musik- Zeitung 31 (1904): 51. Fischer, Walter. Review of Schule des Triospiels, by Max Reger and Karl Straube ; Variationen und Fuge über ein Originalthema op. 73, by Max Reger ; and Orgelkompositionen, by Franz Liszt , edited by Karl Straube. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 31 (26 February 1904): 165-166. Fischer, Walter. Review of Schule des Triospiels, by Max Reger and Karl Straube. In Die Musik 3 (1904): 372. Fischer, Walter. Review of Variationen und Fuge über ein Originalthema op. 73, by Max Reger. In Die Musik 4 (1904): 68-69. Fischer, Walter. ‘Karl Straube.’ Musikalisches Wochenblatt 35 (29 September 1904): 701-702. Fischer, Walter. Review of Alte Meister des Orgelspiels, edited by Karl Straube. Allgemeine Musik- Zeitung 31 (23 September 1904): 622. Fischer, Walter. ‘Max Reger als Orgelkomponist.’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 30/31 (July-August 1905): 508-510; and 32/33 (August 1905): 525-527. Fischer, Walter. Review of Choralvorspiele alter Meister, edited by Karl Straube. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 34 (8 November 1907): 755. Fischer, Walter. Deutsche Orgelkunst: Sechs historische Orgelvorträge von Walter Fischer am 1., 8., 15., 22. October und am 5. Nov. 1908, jedesmal von 6-7 Uhr. Berlin: Privately printed, 1908. Fischer, Walter. ‘Phantasie über den Choral “Hallelujah! Gott zu loben, bleibe meine Seelenfreud!”.’ Program notes to Karl Straube’s performance of Phantasie über den Choral ‘Hallelujah! Gott zu loben, bleibe meine Seelenfreud!’ op. 52/3, by Max Reger , on 9 May 1910 in the Reinholdikirche zu Dortmund. In Programmbuch Max-Reger-Fest Dortmund. Dortmund: Privately printed, 1910. Fischer, Walter. Über die Wiedergabe der Orgel-Kompositionen Max Regers: Vortrag für die Generalversammlung Westfälischer Organisten zu Dortmund im Mai 1910. Cöln: Tischer und Jagenberg, 1910. Fischer, Walter. Review of Orgelwerke Band II, by Johann Sebastian Bach, ed. Karl Straube. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 40 (25 April 1913): 612.397 Fleischer, Heinrich. ‘Weimar und Leipzig, Michael Schneider und Karl Straube: Persönliche Erinnerungen.’ In Orgel, Orgelmusik und Orgelspiel: Festschrift Michael Schneider zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Christoph Wolff , 178-182. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1985. Frisch, Walter. ‘Bach, Brahms, and the Emergence of Musical Modernism.’ In Bach Perspectives 3: Creative Responses to Bach from Mozart to Hindemith, 109-131. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998. Frisch, Walter. ‘Reger’s Bach and Historicist Modernism.’ 19th Century Music 25 (Fall/Spring 2001- 2002): 296-312. Fomer, Johannes. ‘Traditionen im Wandel der Zeit: Rückblick auf die Geschichte der Abteilungen am Konservatorium.’ In 1843-1968 Hochschule für Musik Leipzig, gegründet als Conservatorium der Musik, ed. Martin Wehnert , Johannes Forner and Hansachim Schiller , 50-51. Leipzig: Bohn und Sohn, 1968. Fortner, Wolfgang. ‘Zu Helmut Walchas Aufsatz “Regers Orgelschaffen kritisch betrachtet”.’ Musik und Kirche 22 (1952): 52-55. Furtwängler, Wilhelm. ‘Dem Freunde.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 113. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Gatscher, Emanuel. ‘Die technischen Aufgaben des modernen Orgelspiels.’ In Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen der Akademie der Tonkunst in München 1874-1924, 81-86. Munich: Selbstverlag der Akademie der Tonkunst, 1924. Geffert, Hans. ‘Zur Dynamik der Regerschen Orgelwerke.’ Mitteilungen des Max- Reger-Institutes 17 (November 1968): 1-6. Gerhardt, Paul. ‘Die erneuerte Orgel der Marienkirche zu Zwickau i. Sa.’ Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker 11 (1 February 1930): 153-155. Gerhardt, Paul. ‘Audiatur et altera pars: Bermerkungen zur modernen Orgelbewegung und dem damit Zusammenhängenden.’ Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker 21(1 June 1939): 41-47. Gottschalg, August Wilhelm. ‘Max Reger (Biographische Skizze).’ Urania 57 (1900): 2. Grabner, Hermann. ‘Meine Studienjahre am Leipziger Konservatorium.’ In 1843-1968 Hochschule für Musik Leipzig, gegründet als Conservatorium der Musik, ed. Martin Wehnert , Johannes Fomer and Hansachim Schiller , 149-153. Leipzig: Bohn und Sohn, 1968. Gurlitt, Wilibald. ‘Hugo Riemann und die Musikgeschichte, zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 18. Juli 1919. Erster Teil: Voraussetzungen.’ Zeitschrift ßr Musikwissenschaft 1 (1918/19): 571-587; reprint in Wilibald Gurlitt: Musikgeschichte und Gegenwart II, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht , 103-122. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1966. Gurlitt, Wilibald. ‘Die Wandlungen des Klangideals der Orgel im Lichte der Musikgeschichte.’ In Bericht über die Freiburger Tagung für Deutsche Orgelkunst vom 27. bis 30. Juli 1926, ed. Wilibald Gurlitt , 11-42. Augsburg: Bärenreiter, 1926. Gurlitt, Wilibald. ‘Zur gegenwärtigen Orgel-Erneuerungsbewegung in Deutschland.’ Musik und Kirche 1 (1929): 15-27.398 Gurlitt, Wilibald. ‘Aus den Briefen Max Regers an Hugo Riemann.’ In Jahrbuch der Musikbibliothek Peters för 1936, 68-83. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1937. Gurlitt, Wilibald. ‘Karl Straube als Vorkämpfer der neueren Orgelbewegung.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 195-225. Leipzig: Koeh-ler und Amelang, 1943. Gurlitt, Wilibald. ‘Johann Sebastian Bach in seiner Zeit und heute.’ In Bericht über die Wissenschaftliche Bachtagung der Gesellschaft för Musikforschung Leipzig 23. bis 26. Juli 1950, ed. Walter Vetter and E. H. Meyer , 51-80. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1951; reprint in Wilibald Gurlitt: Musikgeschichte und Gegenwart I, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht , 159-175. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1966. Gurlitt, Wilibald. ‘Vom Klangbild der Barockmusik.’ In Die Kunstformen des Barockzeitalters: Vierzehn Vorträge, ed. Rudolf Stamm , 227-242. Munich: Lehnen, 1956: reprint in Wilibald Gurlitt: Musikgeschichte und Gegenwart I, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht , 111-121. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1966. Haas, Bernhard. ‘Regers Werktexte als Interpretationsansatz.’ In Zur Interpretation der Orgelmusik Max Regers, ed. Hermann J. Busch , 36-50. Kassel: Merseburger, 1988. Haas, Joseph. ‘Reger als Lehrer.’ In Regers Persönlichkeit, 50-59. Max Reger: eine Sammlung von Studien aus dem Kreise seiner persönlichen Schüler, ed. Richard Würz , vol. 2. Munich: Halbreiter, 1921. Haas, Joseph. ‘Meinen Lehrmeistern zum Gedenken.’ Zeitschrift för Musik 115 (1954): 129-132. Haas, Rosalinde. ‘Das Problem einer werkgetreuen Interpretation der Orgelkompositionen von Max Reger.’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 18 (July 1971): 48-50. Hambraeus, Bengt. ‘Karl Straube, Old Masters and Max Reger: A Study in 20th Century Performance Practice.’ Svensk tidskrift för musikforskning 69 (1987): 37-73; reprint with revisions in Reger-Studien 5: Beiträge zur Regerforschung, 41-72. Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger-Instituts no. 10. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1993. Handke, Erna. ‘Vom Reger-Spiel auf unseren Orgeln.’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 11 (August 1960): 32-35. Handschin, Jacques. ‘Die Freiburger Tagung für deutsche Orgelkunst.’ Zeitschrift för Musikwissenschaft 8 (1926): 648-650. Hasse, Karl. ‘Max Reger und die deutsche Orgelkunst.’ In Bericht über die Freiburger Tagung för Deutsche Orgelkunst vom 27. bis 30. Juli 1926, ed. Wilibald Gurlitt , 122-129. Augsburg: Bärenreiter, 1926. Hasse, Karl. ‘Max Reger und unsere Zeit.’ Zeitschrift för Musik 100 (March 1933): 205-207. Hasse, Karl. ‘Karl Straube als Orgelkünstler.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 153-194. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Hasse, Karl. ‘Regers Persönlichkeit.’ In Max Reger. Dortmund: Crüwell, 1951.399 Haupt, Hartmut. ‘Max Regers letztes Orgelwerk op. 135b.’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 17 (November 1968): 6-12. Haupt, Hartmut. ‘Max Regers Orgelvariationen op. 73.’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 19 (August 1973): 26-38. Haupt, Hartmut. ‘Max Reger als Lehrer am Leipziger Konservatorium.’ In Festschrift Hochschule für Musik und Theater ‘Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy’: 150 Jahre Musikhochschule 1843-1993, ed. Johannes Forner , 91-101. Leipzig: Verlag Kunst und Touristik GmbH, 1993. Hausegger, Siegmund von. ‘Die Aufgaben der Akademie der Tonkunst in unserer Zeit.’ In Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen der Akademie der Tonkunst in München 1874-1924, 13-24. Munich: Selbstverlag der Akademie der Tonkunst, 1924. Hausegger, Siegmund von. ‘Geleitwort zum 6. Januar 1943.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 7-11. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Heintze, Hans. ‘Der Organist Günther Ramin.’ Musik und Kirche 28 (1958): 193-197. Held, Christoph. ‘Karl Straubes Lebensstationen.’ In Karl Straube: Wirken und Wirkung, ed. Christoph and Ingrid Held , 9-23. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 1976. Hellmann, Diethard. Review of Max Reger: Briefe an Karl Straube, ed. by Susanne Popp. In Musik und Kirche 58 (1988): 304-305. Hellmann, Diethard. ‘Die Leipziger Bach-Tradition in der 1. Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts (Die Ära Straube/Ramin).’ In Musikalische Aufführungspraxis und Edition, 9-32. Schriftenreihe der Hochschule für Musik in München, ed. Gernot Gruber , Robert Münster , Erich Valentin and others, no. 6. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1990. Herbst, Wolfgang , ‘ben marcato - Max Regers Bemühungen um die Erkennbarkeit musikalischer Strukturen.’ In Bachstunden: Festschrift für Helmut Walcha zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Walther Dehnhard und Gottlob Ritter , 107-113. Frankfurt/Main: Evangelischer Presseverband in Hessen und Nassau, 1978. Herbst, Wolfgang. ‘Karl Straube als Prügelknabe?’ Der Kirchenmusiker 43 (1992): 73. Herold, Curt. ‘Der Einfluss Hugo Riemann’s auf Max Reger.’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 39 (20 December 1912): 1371-1372. Herrenschwand, Franz. ‘The Organ of Max Reger.’ The American Organist 44 (March 1961): 13-14. Hesford, B. ‘Max Reger: The Problems of Performance of His Organ Works in Our Time.’ Musical Opinion 102 (July 1979): 413-415. Heyer, H. ‘In Memoriam: Karl Straube.’ Musica 4 (1950): 206-208. Hill, Robert. ‘“Overcoming Romanticism”: On the Modernization of Twentieth-Century Performance Practice.’ In Music and Performance during the Weimar Republic, ed. Bryan Gilliam , 37-58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Hilmes, Oliver. ‘Karl Hoyer (1891-1936).’ Musik und Kirche 66 (1996): 291-297.400 Hoffmann, Herbert Manfred. ‘Gedanken zur heutigen Interpretation Regerscher Orgelmusik.’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 14 (December 1963): 26-28. Hoffmann, Herbert Manfred. ‘Zur Interpretation Regerscher Orgelmusik.’ Musik und Kirche 37 (1967): 162-163. Högner, Friedrich. ‘Die deutsche Orgelbewegung.’ Zeitwende 7 (1931): 56-71. Högner, Friedrich. ‘An Karl Straube zum 60. Geburtstag.’ Zeitschrift für Musik 100 (January 1933): 33-34. Högner, Friedrich. ‘Karl Straube als Erzieher.’ Zeitschrift für Musik 110 (January 1943): 5-6. Högner, Friedrich. ‘Das Gesetz der Orgel: Max Reger und der moderne Orgelbau.’ Musik und Kirche 23(1953): 94-100. Högner, Friedrich. ‘Günther Ramin †.’ Musik und Kirche 26 (1956): 49-51. Högner, Friedrich. ‘Max Reger und die deutsche Orgelbewegung.’ Ars Organi 32 (June 1968): 1153- 1158. Högner, Friedrich. ‘Zur Darstellung der Orgelwerke Max Regers.’ Musik und Kirche 41 (1971): 302-307. Högner, Friedrich. ‘Persönliche Erinnerungen an Karl Straube.’ Gottesdienst und Kirchenmusik 5 (September/October 1972): 163-166. Högner, Friedrich. ‘Max Reger und Karl Straube.’ Musik und Gottesdienst 27 (1973): 139-144. Högner, Friedrich. ‘Karl Straube und die mißbrauchte Musikphilologie.’ Musik und Kirche 44 (1974): 280- 285. Högner, Friedrich. ‘Karl Straube, der Orgelvirtuose.’ In Karl Straube: Wirken und Wirkung, ed. Christoph and Ingrid Held , 27-35. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 1976. Högner, Friedrich. ‘Karl Straube als Interpret.’ Musik und Kirche 47 (1977): 24-25. Holschneider, Andreas. ‘Bach-Rezeption und Bach-Interpretation im 20. Jahrhundert.’ Musica 30 (1976): 9-14. Hübner, Maria. ‘Zur Aufführung der Werke Bachs durch Karl Straube.’ Musik und Kirche 63 (1993): 319- 327; and 64 (1994): 24-33. Hübner, Maria. ‘Karl Straube zwischen Kirchenmusik und Kulturpolitik: Zu den Rundfunksendungen der Bach-Kantaten 1931-1937.’ In Leipziger Beiträge zur Bach-Forschung. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1995. Hübner, Maria. ‘Der Bach-Verein zu Leipzig, 1875-1920.’ Bach-Jahrbuch 83 (1997): 97-115. Hudemann, H. O. ‘Karl Straube zu Ehren.’ Gottesdienst und Kirche 1 (January-February 1974): 5-9. ‘In memoriam Karl Straube.’ Musik und Gesellschaft 20 (April 1970): 282-283. Jäger, Emst. ‘Ein Beitrag zum Problem “Reger und die neue Orgel”.’ Musik und Gottesdienst 20 (1966): 144-147. Jähnig, R. ‘Zu den Reifeprüfungen am kirchenmusikalischen Institut der evangelischen lutherischen Landeskirche am Konservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig.’ Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker 9 (15 August 1927): 75-77.401 Jahnn, Hans Henny. ‘Die Praetoriusorgel des musikwissenschaftlichen Seminars der Universität Freiburg i. Br.’ Allgemeine Künstler-Zeitung 12 no. 4 (1923?): 1-15. Jahnn, Hans Henny. ‘Das moderne Instrument.’ In Dritte Tagung für deutsche Orgelkunst in Freiberg in Sachsen vom 2.-7. October 1927: Einführungsheft, ed. Ernst Flade , 69-79. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1927. Jahnn, Hans Henny. ‘Frühe Begegnung mit Günther Ramin.’ Schriften zur Literatur, Kunst und Politik (2) 1946-1959. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, 1991. Jung, Wilhelm. ‘Die neue Orgel des Landeskonservatoriums zu Leipzig.’ Zeitschrift för Kirchenmusiker 9 (15 December 1927): 137. Kalkoff, Artur. ‘Die Orgelwerke Max Regers und die neue Orgelbewegung.’ In Max Reger: Festschrift aus Anlaß des 80. Geburtstages des Meisters am 19. März 1953, 35-52. Leipzig: Hofmeister, 1953. ‘Karl Straube.’ The Musical Times 91 (July 1950): 282. ‘Karl Straube Taken by Death in Leipzig.’ The Diapason 41 (1 June 1950): 3. ‘Karl Straube 1873-1973.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 24 (1973): 11-12. Keller, Hermann. ‘Max Regers Orgelwerke.’ Neue Musik-Zeitung 37 (1916): 283-287. Keller, Hermann. ‘Die deutsche Orgelmusik nach Reger.’ In Bericht über die Freiburger Tagung für Deutsche Orgelkunst vom 27. bis 30. Juli 1926, ed. Wilibald Gurlitt , 130-133. Augsburg: Bärenreiter, 1926. Kelletat, Herbert. ‘Grundlagen der Orgeltechnik.’ Musik und Kirche 6 (1934): 121-127. Kippenberg, Anton. ‘Gruss und Angebinde.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 114-130. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Klotz, Hans. ‘Karl Straube †.’ Die Musikforschung 3 (1950): 236-239. Klotz, Hans. ‘Gedanken zur Orgelmusik Max Regers.’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 7 (March 1958): 12-14. Klotz, Hans. ‘The Organ Works of Max Reger: An Interpretation.’ The Organ Yearbook 5(1974): 66-69. Klotz, Hans , and Herbert Manfred Hoffmann. ‘Zur Wiedergabe von Regers Orgelmusik.’ Musik und Gottesdienst 20 (1966): 80-85. Köhler, Johannes-Ernst. ‘Max Regers Orgelschaffen in unserer Zeit.’ In Beiträge zur Regerforschung, ed. Max-Reger-Festkomitee des Rates des Bezirkes Suhl, 98-102. Meiningen: Südthüringer Forschungen, 1966. Kreckel, Philip G. ‘Reger As I Knew Him: Personal Characteristics of the “Bach of the Twentieth Century”.’ The American Organist 20 (July 1937): 232-234. Kroyer, Theodor. ‘Karl Straube und die historische Renaissance.’ Zeitschrift für Musik 97 (November 1930): 897-899. Krummacher, Christoph. ‘Max Reger und Karl Straube: Anmerkungen zu einer Freundschaft.’ Zeitung der Hochschule für Musik und Theater ‘Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy’ Leipzig 2 (June 1996): 4-6.402 Lang, Heinrich. Review of Drei Phantasien für Orgel op. 52, Zwölf Orgelstücke op. 59, Variationen und Fuge über ‘Heil Dir im Siegerkranz‘ and other compositions by Max Reger. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 28 (6 December 1901): 800-801. Leistner, Siegfried. ‘Der grösste Thomaskantor seit Bach: Erinnerungen an Karl Straube.’ Musik und Kirche 20 (1950): 82-85. Leuders, Kurt. ‘In Search of the Reger Organ.’ Music - The AGO-RCCO Magazine (June 1978): 33-35; (January 1979): 44-45; (April 1979): 39-41; (February 1980): 34-37; (September 1980): 48-50; (March 1981): 40-43; and (October 1981): 44-47. Litt, Theodor. ‘Musik und Menschenbildung.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 96-112. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Lohmann, Heinz. ‘Bemerkungen zur Interpretation der Orgelwerke von Max Reger.’ Musik und Kirche 43 (1973): 222-233. Lohmann, Heinz. ‘’Reger neobarock’ - eine Stellungnahme.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 24/6 (1973): 172-176. Lohmann, Heinz. ‘Reger neobarock: Abschliessende Bemerkungen von Heinz Lohmann.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 25 (1974): 89-91. Lohmann, Heinz. ‘The Interpretation of Max Reger’s Organ Works.’ Music - The AGO-RCCO Magazine (June 1978): 37-40. Lohmann, Ludger. ‘Hugo Riemann and the Development of Musical Performance Practice.’ In Proceedings of the Göteborg International Organ Academy 1994, by Musikhögskolan/Göteborgs Universitet. Göteborg: Musikhögskolan/Göteborgs Universitet, 1995, 251-283. Lölkes, Herbert. ‘Musica sacra im Zeichen Johann Sebastian Bachs: Der Thomaskantor Karl Straube (1873-1950).’ Der Kirchenchor 25 (1985): 18-23. Mahrenholz, Christhard. ‘Fünfzehn Jahre Orgelbewegung.’ Musik und Kirche 10 (1938): 8-28. Matthaei, Karl. ‘Dank an Karl Straube.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 90-95. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Mauser, Siegfried. ‘Probleme der Rezeption und Interpretation Regerscher Musik.’ In Reger-Studien 4: Colloque franco-allemand, Paris 1987. Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger-Instituts no. 9. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1989. Metzger, Hans-Arnold. ‘Max Regers geistliche Chorwerke und sein Orgelschaffen.’ Musik und Kirche 36 (1966): 213-224. Meyer-Siat, P. , and Alfred Reichling. ‘Eine Liste deutscher Orgelbauer aus dem Jahre 1917.’ Acta Organologica 12 (1978): 221-228. Mezger, Manfred. ‘Inquisition: Der “Nationalsozialist” Günther Ramin.’ Musik und Kirche 59 (1989): 289- 292. Michel, Johannes Matthias. ‘Sigfrid Karg-Elert und Max Reger.’ Musik und Kirche 56 (1986): 240-246. Michel, Paul. ‘Max Regers Lehrerpersönlichkeit.’ Musik in der Schule 17 (1966): 244. Michel, Paul. ‘Max Regers musikpädagogische Auffassungen.’ In Neue Beiträge zur Regerforschung und Musikgeschichte Meiningens. 1970. 7-42.403 Mitteis, Heinrich. ‘Karl Straube und die Geschichte.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 261-277. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Müller, Hans Herbert. ‘Max Reger und seine Zeit.’ Österreichische Musikzeitschrift 21 (1966): 276-280. Münch, Fritz. ‘Karl Straube und die Bach-Pflege im Elsass.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 148-152. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Münzenberg, Theodor. ‘Kein Prügelknabe, sondern unter den “Prügelnden”.’ Review of Karl Straube und seine Schule, by Günther Hartmann. In Der Kirchenmusiker 43(1992): 156. Niemann, Walter. ‘Die alte und die neue Leipziger Schule.’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 44 (14 September 1917): 559-560. Oesterfeld, Herta. ‘Karl Straubes Beziehungen zu Max Reger.’ In Karl Straube: Wirken und Wirkung, ed. Christoph and Ingrid Held , 83-109. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 1976. Otto, Eberhard. ‘In Memoriam Karl Straube.’ Musica 17 (1963): 85-86. Parkins, Robert. ‘Rediscovering the German Romantic Organ.’ The Diapason 18 (January 1989): 14- 17; (February 1989): 14-15; and (March 1989): 12-13. Patzlaff, Martin. ‘Übergangs- und Terrassendynamik: das Interpretationsproblem spätromantischer Orgelmusik. Zu dem Beitrag von Traugott Timme.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 37 (1986): 56-57. Paulik, Gerhard. ‘Schlußbetrachtung.’ Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker 21 (1 July 1939): 51-52. Piersig, Johannes. ‘Der Streit um Reger.’ Musik und Kirche 24 (1954): 49-59. Piersig, Johannes. ‘So ging es allenfalls mit Thomaskantor Prof. Dr. Karl Straube.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 29 (1978): 112-119. Pods, Günther. “Jagd auf tote Nazis?’ zu G. Hartmann: Straube - Das Ganze ist ein Mythos.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 43 (1992): 192-193. Popp, Susanne. ‘Zur Quellenlage der Regerschen Orgelwerke.’ In Zur Interpretation der Orgelmusik Max Regers, Ed. Hermann J. Busch , 29-35. Kassel: Merseburger, 1988. Popp, Susanne. ‘Rot und Schwarz: Untersuchungen zur Zweifarbigkeit der Autographen Max Regers.’ In Reger-Studien 3: Analysen und Quellenstudien, ed. Susanne Popp and Susanne Shigihara , 183- 226. Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger-Instituts no. 6. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1988. Prince, Philip. ‘Reger and the Organ.’ The Diapason 64 (March 1973): 1. Quoika, Rudolf. ‘Max Regers Orgelschaffen - heute? - Eine Stellungnahme für Max Reger.’ Musik und Kirche 22 (1952): 57-61. Quoika, Rudolf. ‘Zur Aesthetik der Orgelwerke Max Regers.’ Ars Organi 28 (July 1976): 937-948. Ramin, Günther. ‘Wege und Ziele der heutigen Orgelmusikpflege.’ Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker 8 (1 July 1926): 41-42.404 Ramin, Günther. ‘Die neue Orgel des Landeskonservatoriums zu Leipzig.’ In Dritte Tagung für deutsche Orgelkunst in Freiberg in Sachsen vom 2.-7. October 1927: Einführungsheft, ed. Emst Flade , 53-55. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1927. Ramin, Günther. ‘Probleme der Übergangsdynamik innerhalb der Orgelmusik.’ In Dritte Tagung für deutsche Orgelkunst in Freiberg in Sachsen vom 2.-7. October 1927: Einführungsheft, ed. Emst Flade , 56-60. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1927. Ramin, Günther. ‘Karl Straube: 25 Jahre in Leipzig an der Thomaskirche.’ Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker 9(15 January 1928): 153. Ramin, Günther. ‘Zum Aufsatz “Grundlagen der Orgeltechnik”.’ Musik und Kirche 6 (1934): 127-130. Ramin, Günther. ‘Stil und Manier: Betrachtungen zur Wiedergabe der Orgelmusik verschiedener Zeiten.’ Musik und Kirche 9 (1937): 212-216. Ramin, Günther. ‘Karl Straube, der Pädagoge.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 18-25. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Ramin, Günther. ‘Nachruf für Karl Straube.’ Musik und Kirche 20 (May-June 1950): no page. Reger, Max. ‘Musik und Fortschritt.’ Leipziger Tageblatt, 16 June 1907; reprint in ‘Die Konfusion in der Musik’: Felix Draesekes Kampfschrift von 1906 und ihre Folgen, ed. Susanne Shigihara , 169-172. Veröffentlichungen der Internationalen Draeseke-Gesellschaft, ed. Helmut Loos , no. 4. Bonn: Gudrun Schröder, 1990. Ramin, Günther. ‘Offener Brief.’ Die Musik 7 (1907-1908): 10-14; reprint in Die Konfusion in der Musik’: Felix Draesekes Kampfschrift von 1906 und ihre Folgen, ed. Susanne Shigihara , 235-241. Veröffentlichungen der Internationalen Draeseke-Gesellschaft, ed. Helmut Loos , no. 4. Bonn: Gudrun Schröder, 1990. Ramin, Günther. ‘Degeneration und Regeneration in der Musik.’ Neue Musik Zeitung 29 (1907): 49-51; reprint in Die Konfusion in der Musik’: Felix Draesekes Kampfschrift von 1906 und ihre Folgen, ed. Susanne Shigihara , 250-258. Veröffentlichungen der Internationalen Draeseke-Gesellschaft, ed. Helmut Loos , no. 4. Bonn: Gudrun Schröder, 1990. Reimann, Heinrich. Review of Erste Sonate d-moll op. 1, Trio h-moll op. 2, Zweite Sonate D-dur op. 3, Sechs Lieder op. 4, and Drei Chöre op. 6; by Max Reger. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 20 (7 July 1893): 375-376. Reimann, Heinrich. ‘Orgel-Sonaten: Kritische Gänge.’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 21 (5 October 1894): 517-519; (12 October 1894): 529-530; (19 October 1894): 543-544; (26 October 1894): 559-560; (2 November 1894): 573-574; (9 November 1894): ?; (16 November 1894): 603-604. Reimann, Heinrich. ‘Die neue Sauer’sehe Orgel in der Kaiser Wilhelm-Gedächtnisskirche zu Charlottenburg-Berlin.’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 22 (30 August 1895): 434-435. Reimann, Heinrich. ‘Französische Orgelkomponisten.’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 23 (26 June 1896): 359-361. Reimann, Heinrich. ‘Bach und Liszt.’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 23 (30 July-7 August 1896): 432- 433.405 Reimann, Heinrich. ‘Die Orgel in der Kaiser Wilhelm-Gedächtnisskirche zu Charlottenburg-Berlin.’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 24 (19 March 1897): 178-179. Reimann, Heinrich. ‘Ueber den Vortrag der Orgelkompositionen Johann Sebastian Bachs.’ In Musikalische Rückblicke. Berlin: Harmonie, 1900. Reimann, Heinrich. ‘Noch einmal über den Vortrag der Orgelkompositionen Johann Sebastian Bachs.’ In Musikalische Rückblicke. Berlin: Harmonie, 1900. Reiners, Hans Peter, and Wolfram Syré. ‘Max Reger und die Orgel.’ In Max Reger in seiner Zeit, ed. Siegfried Kross , 31-44. Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1973. Richter, Eugen. ‘Die moderne Orgelbewegung: Wo stehen wir heute?’ Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker 21 (1 March 1939): 17-20. Richter, Eugen. ‘Eine Klarstellung?’ Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker 21 (1 July 1939): 49-51. Richter, Lukas. ‘Karl Straubes Ausgaben Bachscher und vorbachscher Orgelwerke.’ In Karl Straube: Wirken und Wirkung, ed. Christoph and Ingrid Held , 157-198. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 1976. Riemann, Hugo. ‘Unsere Konservatorien.’ Präludien und Studien I. Leipzig: 1895; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967. Riemann, Hugo. ‘Musikunterricht sonst und jetzt.’ In Präludien und Studien II. Leipzig: 1900: reprint, Hildesheim: Goerg Olms, 1967. Riemann, Hugo. ‘Degeneration und Regeneration in der Musik.’ Max Hesses Deutscher Musiker- Kalender für das Jahr 1908 23 (1908): 136-138; reprint in ‘Die Konfusion in der Musik’: Felix Draesekes Kampfschrift von 1906 und ihre Folgen, ed. Susanne Shigihara , 245-249. Veröffentlichungen der Internationalen Draeseke-Gesellschaft, ed. Helmut Loos , no. 4. Bonn: Gudrun Schröder, 1990. Riemann, Hugo. ‘Konservatorium.’ Hugo Riemann’s Musik-Lexicon. 9th ed. Berlin: Hesse, 1919. Riethmüller, Albrecht. ‘Die Bestimmung der Orgel im Dritten Reich. Beispiel eines Fundierungszusammenhangs zwischen ästhetischer Anschauung und politischer Wirklichkeit.’ In Orgel und Ideologie: Bericht über das 5. Colloquium der Walcker-Stiftung für orgelwissenschaftliche Forschung 5.-7. Mai 1983 in Gött-weig, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht , 28-69. Murrhardt: Musikwissenschaftliche Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH, 1984. Röhl, Uwe. ‘Kein Prügelknabe, sondern unter den “Prügelnden”.’ Der Kirchenmuster 43 (1992): 155-156. Röntsch, Paul. ‘Bericht über die ersten 75 Jahre des Königlichen Konservatoriums der Musik zu Leipzig.’ In Festschrift zum 75-jährigen Bestehen des Königlichen Konservatoriums der Musik zu Leipzig am 2. April 1918, 3-40. Leipzig: Siegel, 1918. Rothe, Hans-Joachim. ‘Fünf unveröffentlichte Briefe Max Regers und seine Leipziger Zeit.’ Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft 8 (1966): 289-301. Rost, Martin. ‘Spätromantische Orgeln als Schlüssel für das Verständnis des Orgelrepertoires der Zeit um 1900 und seiner Interpreten.’ In Restaurierung pneuma tischer Orgeln: Bericht über die Tagung der Internationalen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Orgeldokumentation in Berlin am 6. August 1993, ed. Uwe Pape , 27-36. Berlin: Pape Verlag, 1995.406 Sachs, Joel. ‘Some Aspects of Musical Politics in Pre-Nazi Germany.’ Perspectives of New Music 9 (1970): 74-95. Scheffler, Christian. ‘Restaurierung pneumatischer Instrumente: Probleme und Erfahrungen.’ In Restaurierung pneumatischer Orgeln: Bericht über die Tagung der Internationalen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Orgeldokumentation in Berlin am 6. August 1993, ed. Uwe Pape , 37-42. Berlin: Pape Verlag, 1995. Schiess, Emst. ‘Die Neue Orgel im Münster zu Basel.’ In Die Orgel im Basler Münster, 5-10. Basel: Schudel, 1956. Schinköth, Thomas. ‘War alles nur ein Mythos?: Karl Straube, die junge Komponistengeneration und das Leipziger Musikleben der zwanziger Jahre.’ In Festschrift Hochschule für Musik und Theater Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy’: 150 Jahre Musikhochschule 1843-1993, ed. Johannes Fomer , 102-138. Leipzig: Verlag Kunst und Touristik GmbH, 1993. Schlecht, G[ottfried]. ‘Für und gegen die moderne Orgel.’ Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker 7 (1925): 3-4, 9- 11, and 31-33. Schmid-Lindner, August. ‘Betrachtungen zur Pflege alter Musik.’ In Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen der Akademie der Tonkunst in München 1874-1924, 49-58. Munich: Selbstverlag der Akademie der Tonkunst, 1924. Schmidt, Christian Martin. ‘Eine wissenschaftlich-kritische Edition? Quellen und Werkausgabe von Regers Choralphantasien.’ Reger-Studien 3: Analysen und Quellenstudien, ed. Susanne Popp and Susanne Shigihara , 249-256. Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger-Instituts no. 6. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1988. Schneider, Max. ‘Karl Straube als Erwecker der alten Musik.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 226-232. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Schöne, Kurt. ‘Max Regers Orgelwerke.’ Zeitschrift für kirchenmusikalische Beamte: Organ des Landesvereins der kirchenmusikalischen Beamten Sachsens 4 (1922-1923): 41-44, 61-62, 78-80, 95- 98, and 101-102. Schreiber, Ottmar. ‘Max Reger and Contemporary German Musical Life.’ Canon 16 (December 1962- January 1963): 81-82. Schreiber, Ottmar. ‘Zur Frage der gültigen Fassung von Regers Orgel-Opus 135b.’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 19 (August 1973): 34-38. Schulze, Herbert. ‘Die Orgelbewegung und ihre gegenwärtige Lage in Deutschland.’ Zeitschrift für Musik 100 (June 1933): 594-598. Schumacher, Gerhard. ‘Wer ist Max Reger?’ Musik und Kirche 51 (1981): 113-120. Schütz, Franz. ‘Die Orgel, J. S. Bach, Max Reger und Franz Schmitt.’ Monatshefte für katholische Kirchenmusik 8 (1926): 17-20. Segnitz, Eugen. ‘Das heutige Leipzig als Musikstadt.’ Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 37 (4 November 1910): 991-992.407 Semrau, Wolfgang. ‘Mein Orgellehrer.’ In Karl Straube: Wirken und Wirkung, ed. Christoph and Ingrid Held , 53-65. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 1976. Söhngen, Oskar. ‘Max Regers Stellung in der kirchenmusikalischen Entwicklung.’ Musik und Kirche 13 (1941): 53-63, 79-87, and 118-143. Söhngen, Oskar. ‘Max Reger heute: Eine Besinnung zu seinem 100. Geburtstag.’ In Musica sacra zwischen gestern und morgen, 2nd ed., 118-130. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1981. Söhngen, Oskar. ‘Die Rolle des Neuen in Musik und Menschenleben: Predigt zum 100. Geburtstag Karl Straubes.’ In Musica sacra zwischen gestern und morgen, 2nd ed., 163-167. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1981. Specht, Franziska. ‘“Ära Straube - Ramin”: Das Thomaskantorat zur NS-Zeit.’ In Musikstadt Leipzig im NS-Staat: Beiträge zu einem verdrängten Thema, ed. Thomas Schinköth , 360-375. Altenburg: Verlag Klaus-Jürgen Kamprad, 1997. Spencer, Vernon. ‘Einiges über das Orgelspiel in Deutschland: Die Leipziger Orgelconcerte des Herrn Karl Straube.’ Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 70 (8 April 1903): 230-232. Stein, Fritz. ‘Erinnerungen an Max Reger.’ Zeitschrift für Musik 100 (March 1933): 207-215. Stein, Fritz. ‘Max Reger und Karl Straube.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 42-79. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Stein, Fritz. ‘Der Freund und Vorkämpfer Max Regers: Erinnerungen an Karl Straube.’ Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 114 no. 3 (1953): 139-148. Stephan, Rudolf. ‘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, 287-292. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1983. Steves, Heinz Herbert. ‘Der Orgelbauer Joachim Wagner (1690-1749).’ Archiv für Musikforschung 4 (1939): 321-358. Stiehl, Herbert. ‘Organist und Kantor zu St. Thomas (Aus den Akten der Thomas-Kirche).’ In Karl Straube: Wirken und Wirkung, ed. Christoph and Ingrid Held, 131-154. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 1976. Stier, Alfred. ‘Max Reger und die klassische Orgel.’ Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusiker 22 (February 1940): 7. Stiller, Günther. ‘Karl Straube und J.S. Bachs Kantaten in den Leipziger Gottesdiensten.’ Musik und Kirche 40 (1970): 97-100, and 189-195. Stiller, Günther. ‘Johann Sebastian Bachs Kantaten in den Leipziger Gottesdiensten unter dem Thomaskantorat von Karl Straube und Günther Ramin.’ In Johann Sebastian Bach, Ende und Anfang: Gedenkschrift zum 75. Geburtstag des Thomaskantors Günther Ramin, ed Diethard Hellmann, 27-50. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1973. Stockmeier, Wolfgang. ‘Karl Straube als Reger-Interpret.’ In Max Reger 1873-1973: Ein Symposion, ed. Klaus Röhring, 21-29. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1974.408 Straube, Karl. Review of Zwei Phantasien für Orgel über die Choräle: ‘Wie schön leucht’t uns der Morgenstern,’ ‘Straf mich nicht in deinem Zorn’ op. 40, by Max Reger. In Monatsschrift für Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst 5 (1900): 209-213. Straube, Karl. ‘Max Reger.’ Neue Musik Zeitung 21 (1900): 267-268. Straube, Karl. ‘Max Regers Orgelkompositionen und Bearbeitungen.’ Monatschrift für Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst 6 (1901 ): 210-212. Straube, Karl. ‘Max Reger.’ Die Gesellschaft 18 (1902): 169-181. Straube, Karl. Review of Zweite Sonate für Orgel op. 60, by Max Reger. Musikalisches Wochenblatt 33 (1902): 254. Straube, Karl. Review of Leicht ausführbare Kompositionen zum gottesdienstlichen Gebrauch op. 61, by Max Reger. Die Musik 2 (1903): 41. Straube, Karl. Review of Monologe op. 63, Zwölf Stücke für Orgel op. 65, Zweiundfönfzig leicht ausführbare Vorspiele für die Orgel zu den gebräuchlichsten evangelischen Chorälen op. 67, and Zehn Stücke für Orgel op. 69; by Max Reger. Die Musik 3 (1903-1904): 131-132. Straube, Karl. Review of Geistliche Lieder aus dem ‘Spanischen Liederbuch’ für eine Singstimme und Orgel, by Hugo Wolf, arranged by Max Reger. Die Musik 3 (1903-1904): 52. Straube, Karl. Review of Romanze für Harmonium oder Orgel, by Max Reger . Die Musik 7(1907): 50. Straube, Karl. ‘Max Reger.’ Mitteilungen der Max Reger-Gesellschaft 4 (November 1924): 1-2. Straube, Karl. Max Reger: Werden und Vollendung. Zum 25. Todestag des Meisters. Leipzig: Poeschel und Trepte im Auftrage des Insel-Verlags, 1941. Straube, Karl. ‘Rückblick und Bekenntnis.’ Musik und Kirche 20 (1950): 85-91. Straube, Karl. ‘Rehabilitationsgesuch 1945.’ Musik und Kirche 62 (1992): 157-163. Straube, Karl et al. ‘Erklärung zu dem Flugblatt “Kirchenmusik im dritten Reich”.’ Zeitschrift für Musik 100 (June 1933): 599-600. Summereder, Roman. ‘Aspekte des Orgelspiels und der Interpretation.’ Österreichisches Orgelforum (1994) no. 1: 4-58. Thienhaus, Erich. ‘Zum Problem “Reger und die Orgel”.’ Musik und Kirche 22 (1952): 104-106. Thomas, Kurt. ‘Karl Straube als Freund der jungen Komponisten.’ In Karl Straube zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Gaben der Freunde, 80-89. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1943. Tietze, Ekkehard. ‘Erinnerungen an Karl Straube.’ Musik und Kirche 43 (1973): 1-7. Timme, Traugott. ‘Übergangs- und Terrassendynamik: das Interpretationsproblem spätromantischer Orgelmusik.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 36 (1985): 207-210; and 37 (1986): 95-96. Timme, Traugott. ‘“Karl Straube und seine Schule”: Zu den Besprechungen des Buches von Günther Hartmann in MuK 3/1992.’ Musik und Kirche 62 (1992): 345-349. Tittel, Karl. ‘Leipzigs größte Kirchenorgel restauriert.’ Musik und Kirche 58 (1988): 328-329.409 ‘25. Todestag Karl Straubes.’ Musik und Gesellschaft 25 (April 1975): 249-250. Unger, Hermann. ‘Reger als Mensch.’ In Regers Persönlichkeit, 60-78. Max Reger: eine Sammlung von Studien aus dem Kreise seiner persönlichen Schüler, ed. Richard Würz, vol. 2. Munich: Halbreiter, 1921. ‘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, 87-91. Munich: Selbstverlag der Akademie der Tonkunst, 1924. Völkl, Helmut. Review of Karl Straube und seine Schule, by Günther Hartmann. In Neue Musik Zeitung 40 (1991): 60. Voppel, Konrad. ‘Karl Straube und das Wesen des deutschen Orgelspiels.’ Musik und Kirche 25 (1955): 90-96. Wagner, Gerhard. ‘Eine (fast) vergessene Orgel der Reger-Zeit. Zur Geschichte der Heidelberger Stadthallenorgel.’ Ars Organi 37 (1989): 24-29. Walcha, Helmut. ‘Regers Orgelschaffen kritisch betrachtet.’ Musik und Kirche 22 (1952): 2-14. Walcha, Helmut. ‘Noch ein Wort zur Aussprache.’ Musik und Kirche 22 (1952): 106-110. Walcker-Mayer, Werner. ‘Die Orgel der Reger-Zeit.’ In Max Reger 1873-1973: Ein Symposion, ed. Klaus Röhring, 31-54. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1974. Walter, Rudolf. ‘Gerechtigkeit für Regers Orgelschaffen.’ Das Musikleben 5 (May 1952): 136-140. Walter, Rudolf , Werner. ‘Max Reger und die Orgel um 1900.’ Musik und Kirche 43 (1973): 282-289. Walter, Rudolf , Werner. ‘Entstehung, Uraufführung und Aufnahme von Max Regers op. 127.’ Mitteilungen des Max-Reger-Institutes 20 (October 1974): 30-53. Walter, Rudolf , Werner. ‘Max Regers Beziehungen zur katholischen Kirchenmusik.’ In Max Reger 1873-1973: Ein Symposion, ed. Klaus Röhring, 123-148. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1974. Walter, Rudolf , Werner. ‘Max Regers Kirchenkonzerte in Thüringen 1912-1916 und ihre Beziehung zu seinem Schaffen.’ In Reger-Studien 1: Festschrift für Ottmar Schreiber. ed. Günther Massenkeil and Susanne Popp, 29-46. Schriftenreihe des Max-Reger-Instituts no. 1. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1978. ‘Wechsel im Leipziger Thomaskantorat.’ Musik und Kirche 11 (1939): no page. Wehnert, Martin. ‘Reger und die Stilkunst um 1900.’ Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft 31 (1989): 112- 117. Weyer, Martin. ‘Aktuelle Probleme des Regerspiels, dargestellt an der Choralfantasie op. 30.’ Ars Organi 48 (October 1975): 2209-2215. Widmann, Joachim. ‘Max Reger.’ Musik und Kirche 36 (1966): 203-213. Williams, Peter. ‘The Idea of Bewegung in the German Organ Reform Movement of the 1920s.’ In Music and Performance during the Weimar Republic, ed. Bryan Gilliam, 135-153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Wolff, Hellmuth Christian. ‘Die Geschichte der Musikwissenschaft an den Universitäten Leipzig und Berlin.’ Sborník Prací Filosofické Fakulty Brnenské University 1969: 17-26.410 Wunderlich, Heinz. ‘Gedanken eines Reger-Interpreten 1966.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 17 (1966): 64-69. Wunderlich, Heinz. ‘Zur Bedeutung und Interpretation von Regers Orgelwerken.’ Musik und Kirche 43 (1973): 7-16. Wunderlich, Heinz. ‘Karl Straube, der Orgelpädagoge.’ In Karl Straube: Wirken und Wirkung, ed. Christoph and Ingrid Held, 36-52. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 1976. Wunderlich, Heinz. ‘Karl Straubes Vortragsbezeichnungen in der Symphonischen Phantasie und Fuge op. 57. ‘ In Zur Interpretation der Orgelmusik Max Regers, ed. Hermann J. Busch, 64-71. Kassel: Merseburger, 1988. Wunderlich, Heinz. ‘Orgelunterricht bei Karl Straube.’ Gottesdienst und Kirche 3 (May-June 1992): 72- 75. Wyly, James. ‘Further Thoughts Towards an Interpretation of Reger’s Organ Music.’ The Diapason 63 (September 1972): 2. Zillinger, Erwin. ‘Das Vermächtnis des Orgelmeisters Karl Straube.’ Der Kirchenmusiker 11 (March-April 1960): 49-53. Jahnn, Hans Henny. Briefe erster Teil. Ed. Ulrich Bitz, Jan Bürger, Sandra Hiemer, and Sebastian Schulin. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, 1994. Reger, Max. Briefe eines deutschen Meisters. Ed. Else von Hase-Koehler. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1928. Reger, Max. Briefwechsel mit Herzog Georg II. von Sachsen-Meiningen. Ed. Hedwig and Erich H. Müller von Asow. Weimar: 1949. Reger, Max. Briefe zwischen der Arbeit. Ed. Ottmar Schreiber. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger- Institutes no. 3. Bonn: Dümmler, 1956. Reger, Max. Briefe zwischen der Arbeit Neue Folge. Ed. Ottmar Schreiber. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes no. 6. Bonn: Dümmler, 1973. Reger, Max. Briefe an Fritz Stein. Ed. Susanne Popp. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes no. 8. Bonn: Dümmler, 1982. Reger, Max. Briefe an Karl Straube. Ed. Susanne Popp. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes no. 10. Bonn: Dümmler, 1986. Reger, Max. Briefe an die Verleger Lauterbach & Kuhn Teil 1. Ed. Susanne Popp. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes no. 12. Bonn: Dümmler, 1993. Reger, Max. Briefe an die Verleger Lauterbach & Kuhn Teil 2. Ed. Susanne Popp. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes no. 14. Bonn: Dümmler, 1996. Reger, Max. Briefwechsel mit dem Verlag C. F. Peters. Ed. Susanne Popp and Susanne Shigihara. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes no. 13. Bonn: Dümmler, 1995. Straube, Karl . Briefe eines Thomaskantors. Ed. Wilibald Gurlitt and Hans-Olaf Hudemann. Stuttgart: K. F. Koehler, 1952.411 Straube, Karl. ‘Ein Brief Karl Straubes über Johann Sebastian Bach.’ Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 14 (1957): 138-144. Straube, Karl. Briefe eines Thomaskantors. Ed. Wilibald Gurlitt and Hans-Olaf Hudemann. Ausgabe für die Deutsche Demokratische Republik. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 1959. Wolf-Ferrari, Ermanno. ‘Ermanno Wolf-Ferrari an Karl Straube: Fünf Briefe aus den Jahren 1901 und 1902.’ Musica 23 (1969): 338-342. Beckmann, Gustav. ‘Nochmals der I. Rheinisch-Westfälische Organistentag.’ Review of Karl Straube at the Kreuzeskirche/Essen on 14 June 1899. In Urania 57 (1900): 49-50. Brandes, F. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 20 September 1918. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 85 (26 September 1918): 249. Brust, F. Review of Karl Straube at the Sängerhaussaal/Strassburg i. El. in February (?) 1917. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 44 (23 February 1917): 114. Burschberg, F. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 31 October 1918. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 85 (7 November 1918): 285. Deinhardt, Hans. Review of Karl Straube at the Stadthalle/Heidelberg on 5 February 1906. In Heidelberger Zeitung, 7 February 1906; reprint in Schreiber, Ottmar and Ingeborg. Max Reger in seinen Konzerten Vol 3: Rezensionen, 124-126. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa- Reger-Stiftung no. 7. Bonn: Dümmler, 1981. Draber, Hugo W. Review of Karl Straube at the Reinholdikirche/Dortmund on 7 and 9 May 1910. In Hamburger Nachrichten, 14 May 1910; reprint in Schreiber, Ottmar and Ingeborg. Max Reger in seinen Konzerten Vol 3: Rezensionen, 261-211. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa- Reger-Stiftung no. 7. Bonn: Dümmler, 1981. E. M. Review of Karl Straube in the Peterskirche/Leipzig in November (?) 1915. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 82 (11 November 1915). E. M. Review of Karl Straube at the Konservatorium der Musik/Leipzig on 28 January 1916. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 83 (3 February 1916): 40. E. M. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 2 November 1916. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 83 (9 November 1916): 354. Eccarius-Sieber, A. Review of Karl Straube at the Stadtgartensaal/Essen on 7 October 1905. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 72 (8 November 1905): 927. Ebel, Arnold. Review of Karl Straube at the Alte Garnisonkirche/Berlin on 8 and 11 November 1913. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 40 (21 Novembr 1913): 1490-1491. Ehlers, Paul. Review of Karl Straube at the Haberbergkirche/Königsberg i. Pr. on 10 May 1907. In Musikalisches Wochenblatt 38 (26 September 1907): 779.412 Eickemeyer, Willy. ‘Das Regerfest in Jena.’ Review of Karl Straube at the Stadtkirche/Jena on 25 or 26 June 1917. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 44 (13 July 1917): 492. F. B. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 8 October 1914. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 81 (29 October 1914): 522. F. B. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 11 March 1915. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 82 (18 March 1915): 103. F. B. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig in March (?) 1916. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 83 (2 March 1916): 78. Fink. Review of Karl Straube at the Odeon/Munich on 17 and 20 November 1905. In Urania 63 (1906): 20-22. Fischer, Walter. Review of Karl Straube at the Alte Garnisonkirche/Berlin in May 1906. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 33 (18 May 1906): 345. Fischer, Walter. Review of Karl Straube at the Alte Garnisonkirche/Berlin on 15 May 1906. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 33 (25 May 1906): 360. Fr[iedhof]., B[ernhard]. Review of Karl Straube at the Reinholdikirche/Dortmund on 7 and 9 May 1910. In Musikalisches Wochenblatt 41 (26 May 1910): 81. Fr[iedhof]., B[ernhard]. Review of Karl Straube at the Reinholdikirche/Dortmund in February (?) 1912. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 39 (8 March 1912): 257. Gottschalg, Alexander Wilhelm. Review of Karl Straube at the Kreuzeskirche/Essen on 14 June 1899. In Urania 56 (1899): 58-59. Hartmann, A. Review of Karl Straube at the Stadthalle/Hannover in Winter/Spring 1916. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 43 (18 August 1916): 448. Helm, Theodor. Review of Karl Straube at the Musikverein/Vienna on 21 and 24 March 1912. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 79 (4 April 1912): 197. Helm, Theodor. Review of Karl Straube at the Musikverein/Vienna on 29 March 1913. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 80 (24 April 1913): 239. Helm, Theodor. Review of Karl Straube at the Musikverein/Vienna on 21 March 1914. In Neue Zeitschriftför Musik 81 (9 April 1914): 233. Helm, Theodor. Review of Karl Straube at the Musikverein/Vienna on 21 March 1915. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 82 (1 April 1915): 123. Helm, Theodor. Review of Karl Straube at the Musikverein/Vienna on 6 May 1916. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 83 (1 June 1916): 184. Helm, Theodor. Review of Karl Straube at the Musikverein/Vienna in May 1917. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 84 (21 June 1917): 210-211. Hermann, Curt. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 1 March 1911. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 38(10 March 1911): 285. Hiller, Paul. Review of Karl Straube in Cologne in Winter 1917. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 44 (12 January 1917): 20. Hiller, Paul. Review of Karl Straube in Cologne on 24 May 1917. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 84 (5 July 1917): 226. Hoffmeister . Review of Karl Straube at the Katharinenkirche/Osnabrück in March (?) 1914. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 81 (26 March 1914).413 Istel, Edgar. Review of Karl Straube at the Odeon/Munich on 17 and 20 November 1905. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 72 (20 December 1905): 1104. Janetschek, Edwin. Review of Karl Straube in Prague in July (?) 1914. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 81 (23 July 1914): 447. Janetschek, Edwin. Review of Karl Straube at the Smetana-Saal/Prague in October (?) 1914. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 82 (11 November 1915): 357. Kamienski, L. Review of Karl Straube at the Stadthalle/Königsberg i. Pr. in December (?) 1912. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 40 (3 January 1913): 14. Kamienski, L. Review of Karl Straube in Essen in May 1914. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 81 (11 June 1914): 342-343. Klatte, Wilhelm. Review of Karl Straube at the Alte Garnisonkirche/Berlin on 17 and 24 March 1896. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 23 (27 March 1896): 181. Köhler, Oscar. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 1 March 1911. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 78 (9 March 1911); 150. Kroyer, Theodor. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 5 March 1901. In Allgemeine Zeitung (München), 7 March 1901; reprint in Schreiber, Ottmar and Ingeborg. Max Reger in seinen Konzerten Vol 3: Rezensionen, 8-9. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa-Reger-Stiftung no. 7. Bonn: Dümmler, 1981. Kroyer, Theodor. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 9 November 1901. In Allgemeine Zeitung (München), 11 November 1901; reprint in Schreiber, Ottmar and Ingeborg. Max Reger in seinen Konzerten Vol 3: Rezensionen, 10-11. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger- Institutes/Elsa-Reger-Stiftung no. 7. Bonn: Dümmler, 1981. Lessmann, Otto. Review of Karl Straube at the Alte Garnisonkirche/Berlin on 12 May 1901. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 28 (17 May 1901): 337-338. Lessmann, Otto. Review of Karl Straube at the Alte Garnisonkirche/Berlin on 20 February 1902. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 29 (28 February 1902): 172-173. Lessmann, Otto. ‘Die XXXIX. Tonkünstler-Versammlung des Allgem. Deutschen Musikvereins.’ Review of Karl Straube at the Münster/Basel on 14 June 1903. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 30 (3 July 1903): 449. Louis, Rudolf. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 5 March 1901. In Kunstwart (München) 14 (1901): 371; reprint in Schreiber, Ottmar and Ingeborg. Max Reger in seinen Konzerten Vol 3: Rezensionen, 9. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa-Reger-Stiftung no. 7. Bonn: Dümmler, 1981. Louis, Rudolf. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 29 April 1904. In Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, 5 May 1904; reprint in Schreiber, Ottmar and Ingeborg. Max Reger in seinen Konzerten Vol 3: Rezensionen, 43-44. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa-Reger-Stiftung no. 7. Bonn: Dümmler, 1981. Müller, Paul. Review of Karl Straube in Gera in March (?) 1914. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 81 (19 March 1914): 183.414 n. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 21 October 1915. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 82 (28 October 1915): 343. Neitzel, Otto. Review of Karl Straube at the Reinoldikirche/Dortmund on 7 and 9 May 1910. In Kölnische Zeitung, 10 May 1910; reprint in Schreiber, Ottmar and Ingeborg. Max Reger in seinen Konzerten Vol 3: Rezensionen, 271-272. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa-Reger- Stiftung no. 7. Bonn: Dümmler, 1981. Notice of Karl Straube at the Musikvereinssaal/Vienna and the Festsaal/Budapest in December (?) 1909. In Musikalisches Wochenblatt 40 (23 December 1909): 572. Notice of Karl Straube at the Stadtkirche/Jena on 5 June 1913. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 80 (29 May 1913): 328. Notice of Karl Straube at the Stadtkirche/Jena on 5 June 1913. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 40 (16 May 1913): 710. Notice of Karl Straube at the Alte Garnisonkirche/Berlin on 8 and 11 November 1913. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 40 (10 October 1913): 1306. Notice of Karl Straube in Berlin on 11 October 1916. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 43 (23 June 1916): 386. Notice of Karl Straube in Gera in Winter 1916. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 43 (20 October 1916): 582. Notice of Karl Straube in Jena on 21 June 1918. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 45 (31 May 1918): 278. Notice of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 20 September 1918. In Allgemeine Musik- Zeitung 45 (13 September 1918): 396. Notice of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 20 September 1918. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 85 (12 September 1918): 227. Oehlerking, H. Review of Karl Straube in Barmen in November (?) 1916. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 83 (23 November 1916): 375. Pochhammer, A. Review of Karl Straube in Aachen in January (?) 1908. In Musikalisches Wochenblatt 39 (23 January 1908): 80. Pottgiesser, Karl. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 27 February and 2 March 1899. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 26 (10 March 1899): 159. Pottgiesser, Karl. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 8, 13, and 20 March 1899. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 26 (7 April 1899): 219. Pottgiesser, Karl. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 5 March 1901. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 28 (22 March 1901): 201. Pottgiesser, Karl. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 9 November 1901. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 28 (22 November 1901): 761. Review of Karl Straube at the Alte Gamisonkirche/Berlin on 29 and 31 May 1895. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 22 (7 June 1895): 304. Review of Karl Straube at the Philharmonie/Berlin in June 1896. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 23 (26 June 1896): 359-361. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaiser Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche/Berlin on 6 August 1896. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 23 (14-21 August 1896): 458.415 Review of Karl Straube’s ‘Fünf historische Orgelkonzerte’ at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 27 February, 2, 8, 13, and 20 March 1899. In Urania 56 (1899): 37. Review of Karl Straube at the Willibrordi Dom/Wesel on 11 and 25 July, 8 and 22 August, 7 and 21 November 1900. In Urania 57 (1900): 51. Review of Karl Straube at the Willibrordi Dom/Wesel on 5 and 26 September and 10 and 24 October 1900. In Urania 57 (1900): 15. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 5 March 1901. In Urania 58 (1901): 37. Review of Karl Straube at the Alte Garnisonkirche/Berlin on 12 May 1901. In Urania 58 (1901): 63. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 9 November 1901. In Urania 58 (1901): 94. Review of Karl Straube in Herne i.W. on 11 April 1902. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 29 (11 April 1902): 282. Review of Karl Straube in Crefeld in May (?) 1902. In Urania 59 (1902): 48. Review of Karl Straube in Koblenz in November (?) 1902. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 29 (7 November 1902): 758. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 18 and 25 February and 4 March 1903. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 70 (1903): 158. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 4 March 1904. In Urania 61 (1904): 41. Review of Karl Straube at the Kaimsaal/Munich on 29 April 1904. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 31 (13 May 1904): 360. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 1 October 1904. In Urania 62(1905): 7. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 30 January 1905. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 72 (8 February 1905): 149 Review of Karl Straube at the Wilhelmskirche/Strassburg i. Els. on 12 and 14 February 1905. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 72 (22 February 1905): 191. Review of Karl Straube at the Wilhelmskirche/Strassburg i. Els. on 12 and 14 February 1905. In Urania 62 (1905): 32. Review of Karl Straube at the Stadthalle/Heidelberg in July (?) 1905. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 32 (25 August-1 September 1905): 552. Review of Karl Straube at the Odeon/Munich on 17 November 1905. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 72 (22 November 1905): 983. Review of Karl Straube at the Odeon/Munich on 20 November 1905. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 72 (29 November 1905): 1007. Review of Karl Straube at the Johanniskirche/Darmstadt on 22 (29?) November 1906. In Urania 63 (1906): 83. Review of Karl Straube at the Johanniskirche/Darmstadt on 29 (22?) November 1906. In Musikalisches Wochenblatt 38 (7 March 1907): 249. Review of Karl Straube in Görlitz on 11 January 1911. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 78 (2 February 1911): 73.416 Review of Karl Straube in Barmen in November (?) 1916. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 43 (17 November 1916): 638. Riesenfeld, Paul. ‘Die Breslauer Musikfestwoche II.’ Review of Karl Straube at the Jahrhunderhalle/Breslau on 24 September 1913. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 40 (7 November 1913): 1417-1418. Schäfer, Theo. Review of Karl Straube at the Museum/Frankfurt Main in November (?) 1903. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 30 (27 November 1903): 760. Schering, Arnold. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 6 November 1903. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 70 (11 November 1903): 588. Schering, Arnold. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 11 December 1903. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 70 (16 December 1903): 674. Schering, Arnold. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 4 March 1904. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 71 (9 March 1904): 204-205. Schering, Arnold. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 3 March 1905. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 72 (8 March 1905): 226. Schlesinger, Stanislaw. Review of Karl Straube at the Sängerhaussaal/Strassburg i. El. in February (?) 1917. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 84 (26 April 1917): 146. Schmid, H. Review of Karl Straube at the Volkshaussaal/Jena on 12 (10?) December 1906. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 34 (8 March 1907): 176. Schmid, H. J. A. F[ritz]. Stein , and E[ugen]. W[eller]. Review of Karl Straube at the Volkshaussaal/Jena on 10 (12?) December 1906. In Urania 64 (1907): 17-20. Schottler, Clemens. Review of Karl Straube at the Stadthalle/Heidelberg on 5 February 1906. In Heidelberger Tageblatt, 7 February 1906; reprint in Schreiber, Ottmar and Ingeborg. Max Reger in seinen Konzerten Vol 3: Rezensionen, 122-124. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa- Reger-Stiftung no. 7. Bonn: Dümmler, 1981. Schrader, B. Review of Karl Straube at the Philharmonie/Berlin in September 1917. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 84 (18 October 1917): 324. Schuster, Bernhard. Review of Karl Straube at the Alte Garnisonkirche/Berlin on 20 February 1902. In Die Musik 1 (1902): 1025; reprint in Schreiber, Ottmar and Ingeborg. Max Reger in seinen Konzerten Vol 3: Rezensionen, 14. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa-Reger-Stiftung no. 7. Bonn: Dümmler, 1981. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 6 November and 11 December 1903. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 31 (1 January 1904): 12. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 5 February and 4 March 1904. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 31 (8 April 1904): 280. Segnitz, Eugen. ‘Das II. Bachfest in Leipzig vom 1.-3. Oktober 1904.’ Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 1 October 1904. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 31 (14 October 1904): 675.417 Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig in October (?) 1908. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 35 (16 October 1908): 735. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig in October (?) 1908. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 35 (23 October 1908): 754. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig in April (?) 1909. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 36 (9 April 1909): 315 Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 7 October 1909. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 36 (15 October 1909): 791. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 1 January 1911. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 38 (13 January 1911): 51. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 1 January 1912. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 39 (12 January 1912): 37. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 22 February 1912. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 39 (1 March 1912): 230. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 18 December 1913. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 40 (26 December 1913): 1657. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 11 March 1915. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 42 (30 April 1915): 219. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 6 January 1916. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 43 (10 March 1916): 125. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig in March (?) 1916. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 43 (28 April 1916): 241. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 2 November 1916. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 44 (26 January 1917): 51. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 1 January 1917. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 44 (4 May 1917): 302. Segnitz, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 20 September 1918. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 45 (27 September 1918): 418-419. Seidl, Armin. Review of Karl Straube in Nürnberg in December (?) 1911. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 39 (19 January 1912): 65. Seiffert, Max. Review of Karl Straube at the Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche/Berlin on 3 March 1893. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 20 (10 March 1893): 143. Seiffert, Max. Review of Karl Straube at the Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche/Berlin on 20 February 1894. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 21 (2 March 1894): 129. Seiffert, Max. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 18 February 1903. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 70 (25 February 1903): 135. Smolian, Arthur. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 4 March 1903. In Leipziger Zeitung, 5 March 1903; reprint in Schreiber, Ottmar and Ingeborg. Max Reger in seinen Konzerten Vol 3: Rezensionen, 26. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Reger-Institutes/Elsa-Reger-Stiftung no. 7. Bonn: Dümmler, 1981. Tiessen, H. Review of Karl Straube at the Stadtkirche/Jena on 5 June 1913. In Allgemeine Musik- Zeitung 40 (20 June 1913): 911.418 Uhl, Edmund. Review of Karl Straube in Wiesbaden in December (?) 1909. In Allgemeine Musik- Zeitung 38 (13 January 1911): 47. Uhl, Edmund. Notice of Karl Straube in Wiesbaden in Winter 1917. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 44 (22 June 1917): 452-453. W. Review of Karl Straube at the Alte Garnisonkirche/Berlin on 8 and 11 November 1913. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 80 (27 November 1913): 669. W. B. Review of Karl Straube at the Andreaskirche/Copenhagen on 1 and 3 October 1913. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 80 (23 October 1913): 606. W. H. Review of Karl Straube at the Thomaskirche/Leipzig on 5 February 1904. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 71 (17 February 1904): 133. Weller, Eugen. Review of Karl Straube at the Volkshaussaal/Jena on 10 (12?) December 1906. In Musikalisches Wochenblatt 38 (11 April 1907). Wildbrett, A. Review of Karl Straube in Nürnberg in March (?) 1917. In Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 44 (16 March 1917): 171. #. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 1 January 1917. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 84 (1 March 1917): 73. #. Review of Karl Straube at the Gewandhaus/Leipzig on 1 November 1917. In Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 84 (15 November 1917): 347. Alte Meister des Orgelspiels: Eine Sammlung deutscher Orgelkompositionen aus dem XVII undXVIII Jahrhundert. Ed. Karl Straube. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1904. Alte Meister des Orgelspiels Neue Folge. Ed. Karl Straube. 2 vols. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1929. Bach, Johann Sebastian. Zweistimmige Inventionen als ‘Schule des Triospiels’ für die Orgel bearbeitet. Arr. Max Reger and Karl Straube. Berlin and Wiesbaden: Bote und Bock, 1903. Bach, Johann Sebastian. Orgelwerke Band II. Ed. Karl Straube. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1913. Bach, Johann Sebastian. Acht kleine Präludien und Fugen für die Orgel. Ed. Karl Straube. New York, London, and Frankfurt: C. F. Peters, 1934. Bach, Johann Sebastian. Choralvorspiele (Sechs und Achtzehn Choräle). Ed. Karl Straube. Forward by Manfred Mezger. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1956. Bach, Johann Sebastian. Ausgewählte Klavierwerke für Orgel bearbeitet. Arr. Max Reger. Vienna: Universal Edition, n. d. Choralvorspiele alter Meister. Ed. Karl Straube. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1907. Liszt, Franz. Orgelwerke. Ed. Karl Straube. 2 vols. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1917. Liszt, Franz. Der Heilige Franziskus von Paula auf den Wogen schreitend für Orgel übertragen von Max Reger. Ed. Gerd Sievers . Wiesbaden, Leipzig , and Paris: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1977. Reger, Max. Drei Orgelstücke op. 59/7-9. Ed. Karl Straube. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1912.419 Reger, Max. Präludien und Fugen opp. 59, 65, 80, and 85. Ed. Karl Straube. Leipzig: C.F.Peters, 1919. Reger, Max. Phantasie über den Choral ‘Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27. Ed. Karl Straube. New York, London, and Frankfurt: C. F. Peters, 1938. Reger, Max. Sämtliche Werke. Ed. Hans Klotz. 35 vols, and 3 supplement vols. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1954-1970 and 1974-1984. Reger, Max. Phantasie und Fuge für Orgel über B-A-C-H. Faksimile des Autographs. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1984. Reger, Max. Sämtliche Orgelwerke. 7 vols. Ed. Martin Weyer. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1987- 1988. Riemann, Hugo , and Carl Armbrust. Technische Studien: Ein Supplement zu jeder Orgelschule. Leipzig: J. Rieter-Biedermann, 1890. Schneider, Julius. Pedalstudien für Orgel. Ed. Karl Straube. 2 vols. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, n. d. Bach, Johann Sebastian. Welte-Philharmonie-Orgel: Karl Straube, Marcel Dupré, Walter Fischer, Paul Hindermann spielen Werke von Johann Sebastian Bach. Intercord INT CD 860.858, 1987. Bach, Johann Sebastian. Kantaten: Historische Aufnahmen 1931. Thomanerchor Leipzig; Stadt- und Gewandhausorchester Leipzig; Karl Straube, conductor. Compact disc produced by the Bach-Archiv Leipzig, 1997. Orgelkonzert mit Günther Ramin in der Thomaskirche zu Leipzig: Historische Aufnahmen von 1946- 1951. Günther Ramin , organ. Ars Vivendi CD 2100202, 1990. Reger, Max. Max Reger spielt eigene Orgelwerke. Max Reger , organ. Columbia LP 80 666, 1961 or 1963; reissued EMI Electrola LP 1 C 053-28 925, 1973. Reger, Max. The Definitive Piano. Famous Composers Play Their Own Music. Max Reger , piano . Telefunken LP TH 97009, 1962. Reger, Max. The Welte Legacy of Piano Treasures. Vol. 8. Max Reger , piano . Recorded Treasures Inc. LP GCP 771, 1972. Reger, Max. Œuvres pour orgue. Anton Heiller, organ. L’Encyclopédie de l’orgue no. 44. Erato LP, 1973. Reger, Max. Welte-Philharmonie-Orgel. Max Reger , Eugene Gigout , Joseph Bonnet , Marcel Dupré , organ. Intercord INT LP 160.857, 1986. Reger, Max. Max Reger. Forgotten Composers, No. 4. Max Reger , piano. Sound cassette. University of Michigan, 1993. Reger-Orgel: Stadtkirche Bad Salzungen. Martin Rost , organ. Sound cassette. Konzertmitschnitt Bad Salzungen (Thür.), 5 May 1996. Privately produced, 1996. Die Sauer-Orgel der Thomaskirche zu Leipzig. Ullrich Böhme , organ. Salicet CD 3604, 1995.420 Evangelisch-Lutherische Thomaskirche zu Leipzig. Program sheets of the St. Thomas Motetten, 1903-1909. Archiv der ev. Thomas-Matthäi-Gemeinde Leipzig, Leipzig. Hochschule für Musik und Theater ‘Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy,’ Leipzig. Program sheets and Zeugnisse from the Konservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig, 1900-1950. Hochschulbibliothek, Bereich Archiv, Hochschule für Musik und Theater ‘Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy,’ Leipzig. Ramin, Günther. Five autograph letters and one autograph postcard to Karl Straube. Private collection of Dieter Ramin, Ingelheim a. Rh. Reger, Max. Phantasie über den Choral ‘Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott’ op. 27a. Autograph from the estate of Karl Straube. Archiv Max-Reger-Institut Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe. Reger, Max. Phantasie und Fuge c-moll op. 29. Autograph from the estate of Karl Straube. Archiv Max-Reger-Institut Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe. Reger, Max. Erste Sonate fis-moll op. 33. Autograph from the estate of Karl Straube. Archiv Max- Reger-Institut Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe. Reger, Max. Erste Sonate fis-moll op. 33. Engraver’s fair copy. Archiv Universal-Edition Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna. Reger, Max. Phantasie über den Choral ‘Wie schön leucht’t uns der Morgenstern’ op. 40/1. Autograph from the estate of Karl Straube. Archiv Max-Reger-Institut Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe. Reger, Max. Phantasie über den Choral ‘Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme’ op. 52/2. Autograph from the estate of Karl Straube. Archiv Max-Reger-Institut Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe. Reger, Max. Phantasie und Fuge d-moll op. 135b. Autograph. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich. Reger, Max. Phantasie und Fuge d-moll op. 135b. Galley proofs, complete, from the estate of Fritz Busch. Archiv Max-Reger-Institut Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe. Reger, Max. Phantasie und Fuge d-moll op. 135b. Galley proofs, incomplete, from the estate of Fritz Stein. Archiv Max-Reger-Institut Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe. Rüger, Hildegund. Prof Dr. Karl Straube: Schülerliste, 1995. Typescript [photocopy]. Hochschulbibliothek, Bereich Archiv, Hochschule für Musik und Theater ‘Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy,’ Leipzig. Sauer Orgelbau, W. Archival materials concerning Opus 1343 and Opus 1319, Konservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig. Archiv W. Sauer Orgelbau , Müllrose. Straube, Karl. Fifteen autograph letters and five autograph postcards to Günther Ramin. Private collection of Dieter Ramin, Ingelheim a. Rh. 421 Walcker Gmbh & Co., E. F. Archival materials concerning Opus 491 and Opus 492, Konservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig. Archiv E. F. Walcker Orgelbau, Kleinblittersdorf. Wolgast, Johannes . Karl Straube : Eine Würdigung seiner Musikerpersönlichkeit anlässlich seiner 25jährigen Tätigkeit in Leipzig. Proof copy. Private collection, USA.422