PAMELA M. POTTER Most German of the Arts MUSICOLOGY AND SOCIETY FROM THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC TO THE END OF HITLER'S REICH Yale University Press New Haven & London To my parents Contents Copyright© 1998 by Yale University. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written per­ mission from the publishers. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Potter, Pamela Maxine. Most German of the arts: musicology and society from the Weimar Acknowledgments v11 Republic to the end of Hitler's Reich / Pamela M. Potter. p. cm. Introduction ix Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-300-07228-0 Abbreviations xix I. Musicology- Germany-History- 20th century. 2. Music and l The Background: Music and German Society, 1918-1945 r society-Germany. 3. Nationalism in music. 4. National socialism and music. 5. Denazification. I. Title. 2 Musicologists on Their Role in Modern German Society 31 ML3797.P67 1998 780'.7'2043-dc21 97-50585 3 The Organization and Reorganization of Musicological CIP Scholarship 5 8 MN 4 Musicology in the University 88 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. 5 New Opportunities outside the University, 1933-1945 125 The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Li­ 6 The Shaping of New Methodologies 16 5 brary Resources. 7 Attempts to Define "Germanness" in Music 200 IO 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I 8 Denazification and the German Musicological Legacy 2 3 5 Notes 267 Bibliography 341 Index 3 57 V • I 3 o The Background 2 postwar testi.mo~ies at .dena~ification trials -with the evidence that many G~rmans active m m~s1cal l~fe continued to thrive, even prospered, under ~1tler. What emerges mstead 1s the image of a cultural climate that was not so mtolera.ble as one ~ight imagine for those who managed to escape political and .racial persecut10n. The Nazi government proclaimed the importance of music for. th~ German. race and channeled resources into its preservation. Those active m ~he music professions, music education, music businesses, and even the. noble mtellectual pursuit of musicology could find some aspects of Musicologists on Their Role in the Nazi cultural agenda that resonated with their own beliefs. This appar­ Modern German Society ently also made it easier for them to overlook the fanaticism and atrocities brought down on their persecuted neighbors and colleagues. The transformation of musical life following World War I was bound to affect the musicology profession. For one thing, many musicologists divided their time between music scholarship and music practice and thus had first­ hand knowledge of issues that affected amateur music making, education, production, consumption, and administration. But even those who restricted their activities to academic pursuits were faced with rising criticism of ivory tower elitism and pressures on universities to demonstrate their usefulness in the new democracy. Academic opportunities for musicologists continued to expand during the Weimar Republic, but academics as a whole were expected to take a more active part in society. Perceiving a crisis in their profession, musicologists called for a reassess­ ment of the discipline. While continuing to establish themselves in the aca­ demic world, they investigated new ways to serve the public. Some became expert commentators on current musical and political issues, but as such they had no impact on Weimar policies. Others realized that their combined experi­ ences as music scholars and practitioners gave them a unique opportunity to serve the community of amateur musicians as agents of Volksbildung, educa­ tion in the broadest sense of the word. This social role enabled musicologists to make a comfortable transition from the Weimar system to the Nazi system as educators with the task of enlightening the German Volk about its musical JI • I 3 2 Musicologists in Modern Germany Musicologists in Modern Germany 3 3 heritage and musical strength. Despite the grander political ambitions of some cological Society (president, r958-6r). In a 1969 article, Blume traced the individuals, musicologists never managed to assume the role of architects of origins of the modern musicologist or musicology professor to the practicing either Weimar or Nazi music policy, even though some became well known for music director. An older scientific study of music, developed by music theorists their fervent endorsements of governmental agendas. in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, had died out in German universities by the eighteenth century. Thereafter the university music director or Kantor Musicology's Ambiguous Identity assumed responsibility for systematic training in musicianship and music his­ tory. Owing to this mixed academic pedigree, modern musicology's status in In r9r8 musicology was a relatively new academic discipline, but Ger­ the university remained ambiguous well into the twentieth century: the first mans had already made their mark. In the second half of the nineteenth cen­ two generations of noted scholars (August Wilhelm Ambros, Friedrich Chry­ ~ury, German and Austrian scholars distinguished themselves as path breakers sander, Philipp Spitta, and Hermann Abert) received their training in other m research and methodology, making important contributions to both histor­ humanities disciplines or practical music, and universities took their time in ical and sys:ematic branches of the field. They set standards for creating cata­ acknowledging musicology as a reputable discipline (Riemann, for example, logues and mdexes for research purposes and for undertaking critical editions never achieved the rank of full professor). As musicology gained more schol­ of musical works. The most ambitious of their editorial projects were the arly credibility, a split developed between those who remained close to music multi volume scholarly editions of early music from German-speaking regions, practice and those who promoted the study of music as a science and required the so-called monuments (Denkmaler) series, the largest among them dating mastery in related disciplines. In Blume's assessment, this ideological split was to the last decade of the nineteenth century (Denkmaler Deutscher Tonkunst never resolved, and the role of music in the German university was never began in 1889, Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Osterreich in r888 and Denk­ clearly de.fined. 1 maler der Tonkunst in Bayern in 1900). German musicologists ;lso devoted Musicology's relative novelty and lack of professional definition accounts e~ergy to establishing scholarly societies and periodicals. By the end of the for the fact that many prolific authors and respected scholars worked mainly nmeteenth century, Germans had established three major scholarly journals outside the academy, that a long tradition of music criticism continued to and had organized the first international musicological society. Toward the supplement the income of even the most famous university professors, and en~ ~f Wo.rld War I, the prospect of peace prompted a surge of organizational that profess~rs of musicology kept up their activities as practicing musicians act1V1ty with the founding .of the German Music Society (Deutsche Musikge­ and composers. These activities allowed them to interact with the music public sellschaft or DMG) and the Royal Institute for German Music Research and to relate more sympathetically with the utilitarian demands under the (Fi.irstlich~s Institut fur deutsche Musikforschung), along with their respective Weimar Republic and the Third Reich than scholars in other fields. When the scholarly Journals and publishing projects. war ended and the Weimar Republic was established, university professors Despite these initiatives, musicology as a profession remained somewhat were apprehensive of the new political environment. They generally opposed loosely de.fined. No one was more aware of this problem than someone like democratic principles, thriving in their own spheres of influence as a small Friedrich Blume. Born in 1893, Blume had to interrupt his studies when called oligarchy, and feared that the flourishing industrial-based economy would to serve in World War I. He finally .finished his studies in the r92os and rose to diminish their importance as bearers of culture. Fritz Ringer convincingly promi~ence .in academe as an expert in Protestant church music, despite the designates Weimar professors as a degenerating class of "mandarin intellec­ precarious circumstances for musicologists in the Weimar period. Blume was tuals," who attained a high social position from educational achievements e:7er vigilant of the practicality of remaining in the public eye and positioned rather than f;om inherited land or acquired capital and, as such, were able to h1~s.elf to assume important tasks in the Third Reich through his activities thrive only in the transitional period between agrarian and industrial econo­ withm and beyond the university. A combination of shrewdness and luck mies. During that transitional period they had wielded the power to define the enabled him to continue to lead musicological enterprises after World War II nation and the state in terms of its intellectual and spiritual life and portrayed