TCM 09 BLOMANN & THYM (2012) a Semblance of Freedom- Hartmann Cold War

twentiethcenturymusichttp://journals.cambridge.org/TCM

Additionalservicesfortwentiethcenturymusic:

Emailalerts:ClickhereSubscriptions:ClickhereCommercialreprints:ClickhereTermsofuse:Clickhere

ASemblanceofFreedom:KarlAmadeusHartmannbetweenDemocraticRenewalandColdWar,19457

ULRICHJ.BLOMANNandJRGENTHYM

twentiethcenturymusic/Volume9/SpecialIssue12/March2012,pp143159DOI:10.1017/S1478572212000230,Publishedonline:27March2013

Linktothisarticle:http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1478572212000230

Howtocitethisarticle:ULRICHJ.BLOMANNandJRGENTHYM(2012).ASemblanceofFreedom:KarlAmadeusHartmannbetweenDemocraticRenewalandColdWar,19457.twentiethcenturymusic,9,pp143159doi:10.1017/S1478572212000230

RequestPermissions:Clickhere

Downloadedfromhttp://journals.cambridge.org/TCM,IPaddress:157.88.149.38on12Apr2013

twentieth-century music 9/12, 143159 8 Cambridge University Press, 2013doi:10.1017/S1478572212000230

A Semblance of Freedom: Karl Amadeus Hartmann betweenDemocratic Renewal and Cold War, 19457

ULRICH J. BLOMANN

TRANSLATED BY JURGEN THYM

AbstractFor more than a decade, literature on the cultural politics of the Cold War in postwar Europe has done much toquestion the notion that the political manipulation of music was confined to the Soviet bloc, and that musicians inthe West enjoyed untrammelled autonomy and freedom. This article focuses on the case of the German composerKarl Amadeus Hartmann, presenting evidence that the reorientation he underwent in the late 1940s (duringwhich he revised, retitled, or suppressed nearly all the works he had composed between 1930 and 1945) wasmotivated not by purely aesthetic or personal considerations, as some writers have suggested, but by strongpressures to eradicate from his output all manifestations of social(ist) and political commitment. In Bavaria,where Hartmann lived, anti-communism was rife in political circles. Meanwhile, in the cultural sphere, criticssuch as Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt (strongly influenced by Nicolas Nabokov) abandoned their pre-war commit-ment to socially relevant art, denounced Shostakovich (a composer much admired by Hartmann), and beganpromoting Schoenberg as a rational, apolitical exemplar of formalism in music. Against this background and in the light of his experiences with one work in particular, the Symphonische Ouverture China kampft Hartmann felt compelled to reassess his political position.

When in 1999 the German weekly Die Zeit published a five-part series on enemy culture

(Feindkultur) edited by Fritz J. Raddatz or, as it was called in the subtitle, Art in Divided

Germany there were contributions on literature (no. 42), the performing arts (no. 43),

film (no. 44), the fine arts (no. 45), and architecture (no. 46), but not on what Thomas

Mann in Die Entstehung des Doktor Faustus called the most German of the arts, namely

music.1 In his introductory comments Raddatz wrote of the rough climate for artists in

the shadow of the emerging Cold War: a time of mutual dependencies as well as of

doctrines and denunciations, in which cross-border commuters on both sides aroused

suspicions if they did not conform to the state-mandated dogma of socialist realism or the

opposite dogma of abstraction.2 That such a characterization might apply equally well

to music manifests itself especially in the postwar biography of Karl Amadeus Hartmann,

adding weight to Raddatzs principal thesis that, where art is concerned, the two Germanies

| 143

A version of this essay appeared in German in Thomas Phleps and Wieland Reich (eds), Musik-Kontexte: Festschrift

fur Hanns-Werner Heister, vol. 1 (Munster: Monsenstein & Vannerdat, 2011), 11331.

1 Mann, Die Entstehung des Doktor Faustus, 110 (trans., 123).

2 Raddatz, Feindkultur, no. 42, p. 17.

were mirror images of each other. Like other scholarship of the past fifteen years,3 Raddatzs

insight confronts once more the long-held belief articulated, for instance, by Adorno in

his 1948 essay Die gegangelte Musik (Music Manipulated) that the manipulation of

music for political purposes was, in the post-war period, confined to the Soviet sphere of

influence, whereas the Western world cultivated and guaranteed artistic freedom.

I

The development of New Music from the end of the war depended on a complex

of extramusical factors to an extent unheard of in early periods. To capture this

evolution mainly as a stylistic phenomenon would lead to an unrealistic or, at best,

incomplete interpretation of a highly complicated process. Future music historians

will have significant problems in assessing especially the time span between c1945

and c1975; it would certainly be important to affirm many a detail that otherwise

could be easily forgotten.4

That cryptic statement was made as early as 1980 by Everett Helm, an American composer,

musicologist, and journalist, who had first-hand knowledge of the European music scene at

the time in question, since he was a cultural officer of the US military government between

1948 and 1949, and lived mainly in Italy before spending the eve of his life in West Berlin.

The complex of extramusical factors as determinants of (musical) style is invoked but

never specified. And then there is the puzzling reference to many a detail that could shed

light on the matter.

In this article I shall suggest that a number of such pertinent details, themselves condi-

tioned by extramusical factors, can be found in the life and work of the German composer

Karl Amadeus Hartmann. After 1945 Hartmann subjected the works he composed during

the Nazi period (especially those espousing an antifascist position and often of a program-

matic nature) to thorough revisions, a process which, for Andreas Jaschinski, was connected

purely to the formation of music-aesthetic goals that would become more concrete for

Hartmann in the 1950s.5 But Jaschinkis interpretation of these revisions, echoed by other

Hartmann scholars, seems insufficient in view of the drastic nature of these compositional

interventions. The extent of the revisions may be briefly specified: of the nineteen works

composed between 1930 and 1945 only three were entered with their original titles into

the self-censored list of compositions that Hartmann produced after the war; these were

the two string quartets and the opera Simplicius Simplicissimus. Of the remainder, scored

mainly for large orchestral forces, nine were either never performed during Hartmanns life-

time or, after a few airings in the years immediately after the war, were never performed

3 See, for instance, Saunders, Who Paid the Piper? ; Wellens, Music on the Frontline ; Carroll, Music and Ideology ; and

Shreffler, Berlin Walls.

4 Helm, Wiederaufbau des deutschen Musiklebens, 135 (authors emphasis). For more on Helms role in West

German musical life in the post-war period see Beal, Negotiating Cultural Allies and New Music, New Allies.

5 Jaschinski, Karl Amadeus Hartmann, 13.

144 | Blomann A Semblance of Freedom

again. An additional seven works, or parts of works, were absorbed, sometimes in an

adapted form, into the first six of Hartmanns eight numbered symphonies, composed after

1945.6

All this begs the question of what really caused the aesthetic reorientation mentioned

by Jaschinski. On the basis of archival research, this article suggests that the thesis already

espoused by Jost Hermand and Hanns-Werner Heister, namely that political confrontations

during the Cold War had a strong influence on music aesthetics in the Bundesrepublik

Deutschland, provides a more convincing framework for assessing Hartmanns change of

orientation in the post-war years.7

IIOf those composers who did not go into exile it was Karl Amadeus Hartmann who was

widely considered to have passed the test of conscience during the Nazi dictatorship with

the most bravery. In contrast, say, to his Bavarian contemporaries Richard Strauss, Hans

Pfitzner, Carl Orff, and Werner Egk, there was no sense that he had benefited at all from

the questionable blossoming of unculture furthered by the National Socialist regime.

Instead, he was recognized as having withdrawn into a so-called inner emigration and

composed works whose humanistic and anti-militaristic orientation, interwoven with calls

for solidarity with socialist utopias, made them rare documents of antifascist resistance in

music.8 After the collapse of the Nazi dictatorship, his exceptional conduct made him, in

the view of the music and theatre branch of the American military government, the whitest

of all prominent German musicians9 and a solid non-Nazi brick,10 who deserved a central

role in rebuilding German cultural life. A man of modest demeanour, Hartmann settled for

the post of dramaturge at the Bavarian State Opera, where he was responsible for a series

of modern music concerts with an international scope: the series was initially called the

Morgenmatineen, but in autumn 1947 was renamed Musica Viva, the title it has retained

ever since. This position enabled the now forty-year-old Hartmann to earn for the first

6 See Blomann, Karl Amadeus Hartmann am Scheideweg, 7.

7 Hermand, Kultur im Wiederaufbau ; Heister, Karl Amadeus Hartmanns innere Emigration .

8 Hartmanns so-called confessional music (Bekenntnismusik) dates in fact from the start of the Nazi period. His one-

movement orchestral work Miserae (1934) is dedicated to those who perished in the Dachau concentration camp,

His anti-militarism, meanwhile, is evident in the Symphonisches Fragment (19356), later reworked as the First

Symphony, which sets poems by Walt Whitman, including an abridged version (in German translation) of I sit

and look out, which tellingly jumps straight from the opening (I sit and look out upon all the sorrows of the world,

and upon all oppression and shame) to the words I see the workings of battle, pestilence, tyranny, I see martyrs and

prisoners. Other works of this period contain quotations of or stylistic allusions to music banned by the Nazis,

whether composers such as Hindemith and Bartok or Jewish music: the First String Quartet (19335) quotes the

Jewish melody Eliyahu hanavi in its outer movements. His Second Piano Sonata 27 April 1945 takes the revolu-

tionary song Bruder zur Sonne, zur Freiheit and turns it into a funeral march.

9 Kilenyi, letter to Office of Military Government, 7 March 1946.

10 Evarts, Special Report, 1. On Evartss support of Hartmanns Munich concert series see Beal, Negotiating Cultural

Allies, 115.

Blomann A Semblance of Freedom | 145

time a regular salary, which secured the livelihood of his family (his son Richard was born

in 1935) and freed him from financial dependency on his in-laws.

While his Bavarian colleagues prepared themselves for their respective denazification

hearings, Hartmann, in his Morgenmatineen, seemed almost to hold up a mirror for them in

the form of concerts that focused in their programmes on problems of complicity and atone-

ment, the music complemented by occasional recitations given by his comrades Wolfgang

Langhoff and Johannes R. Becher. On Sunday 21 October 1945 the second of these concerts,

combining poetry and music, contained three works for string orchestra, including the

Adagietto from Mahlers Fifth Symphony and Hartmanns own violin concertino Musik

der Trauer, written at the start of the war in autumn 1939. The autograph score of this

work, known today in its 1959 revision as Concerto fune`bre, bears the following motto: All

brotherly-minded men are threatened with the greatest insanity the most evil crime

war.11 Meanwhile, among the poems recited at the concert was the Kriegslied of 1779 by

the freemason Matthias Claudius, with its repeated lines Alas it is war and I beg that I

should not be guilty of it.12 Hartmann also worked closely with Hans Rosbaud, who, being

charged by the military government with the direction of the Munich Philharmonic

Orchestra, had a near-exclusive control over the total budget for musical life in the city.

Now recognized as an integral part of Munichs cultural elite, Hartmann could look back

on the first year since the end of the war with some satisfaction.

But the political atmosphere was changing. On 12 March 1947 Harry S. Truman made

the speech to the joint gathering of House and Senate that set out what became known as

the Truman Doctrine. As Truman later wrote in his memoirs: The line had been drawn

sharply. [. . .] [E]very nation was now faced with a choice between alternative ways of

life.13 That this escalation in world politics did not stop at artistic discourses soon became

clear to Hartmann, who, a few months after Trumans speech, had to prepare for the pre-

mie`re of his Symphonische Ouverture China kampft (China Fights, composed in 1942)

under the direction of his former teacher Hermann Scherchen at the second Darmstadter

Ferienkurse fur internationale neue Musik, which took place from 12 to 27 July 1947.

Hartmanns overture was dedicated originally to Sergei Tretyakov and then to Tan Shih-hua,

the communist revolutionary hero of Tretyakovs novel A Chinese Testament. It used as

its main theme the well-known folk melody Meng Jiang-nu, which, as Agnes Smedley

had reported from China a decade earlier, had become a revolutionary song.14 Even though,

11 Allen bruderlich gesinnten Menschen droht der grote Wahnsinn / das gemeinste Verbrechen / der Krieg!;

Hartmann, Musik der Trauer, autograph score, Staatsbibliothek, Munich, M. 1214.

12 s ist leider Krieg und ich begehre / Nicht schuld daran zu sein! (Claudius, Werke in einem Band, 236).

13 Truman, Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 106.

14 Hartmann most probably became aware of the song and its background through the composer and musicologist

Hsiao Shu-sien, who was married to the conductor Hermann Scherchen: Hartmann visited the couple regularly at

their home in Switzerland, especially in 193543, when Hartmann was studying with Scherchen. In addition Agnes

Smedley, an American author widely read by leftist intellectuals at the time, discusses the song, though not in her

book China Fights Back, with whose German version, China kampft, the overture shares its title, but in her earlier

collection of essays Chinese Destinies (1933). Smedley wrote: This one song, so universally known and sung in


as an analysis of more than thirty reviews makes clear,15 the work found an enthusiastic

reception with audiences, the music critics, almost without exception, condemned the com-

position solely because of the way it harked back to models of programme music. Accord-

ing to Wolfgang Fortner, factional struggles over aesthetic issues16 now erupted at the

Ferienkurse: while not linking these struggles to the political reorientation, Fortner went

on to warn that certain means of expression in new music, especially in terms of harmony

and compositional technique, threaten to become divisive.17

An essential influence on the critical reaction of the trade journals was exerted by the

Berlin-based Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt, who had been invited to Darmstadt that year as

lecturer in music criticism. Shortly after being released from American captivity as a prisoner

of war, he had publicly adopted aesthetic positions that diametrically opposed those he had

represented during the years of the Weimar Republic. In the time between the wars he had

propagated viewpoints close to the philosophy of his friend Hanns Eisler. Any bakery

is more important,18 he proclaimed to his readers, than an art that is socially irrelevant,

without the power of commitment, without a function in the reality of life.19 He even asked

the question of why the ideas of an eight-hour workday, of the equality of all people, or of

socialization in general should not become carriers of artistic inventions, comparable to the

resurrection of Christ or the bourgeois revolution.20 Yet after World War II he followed in

the footsteps of Arnold Schoenberg, whom he had denounced in the Weimar Republic as

the head of a club of out-of-touch aestheticists (eines weltfremden Asthetenkranzchens).21

How can this change of position be explained?

In the postwar years Stuckenschmidt had found a mentor in Nicolas Nabokov, an Amer-

ican cultural officer of Russian descent with a strongly anticommunist disposition.22 Nabokov

was himself a composer, who had studied music first with Rebikov in Yalta, and then (on

fleeing Russia) at the Stuttgart Conservatory with Joseph Haas, who happened also to have

been one of Hartmanns composition teachers. After studying in Berlin with Busoni (1922

3) and then in Paris at the Sorbonne, he embarked on a teaching career, before emigrating

to the USA in 1933. Stuckenschmidts appointment books record several meetings with

China, has come to be a symbol not so much of suffering at the building of the Great Wall, as of suffering in general.

Today in the streets of Shanghai you can hear the coolies sing it, but in a transformed version. It is now a revolu-

tionary song, a song retaining part of the original words, as also the entire music of the original. But the rest of it is a

story of the revolution which the people built but which was then betrayed by the Kuomintang (Smedley, Chinese

Destinies, 315).

15 Blomann, Karl Amadeus Hartmann am Scheideweg, 20628.

16 Fortner, Kranichsteiner Ferienkurse, 391.

17 Fortner, Kranichsteiner Ferienkurse, 391.

18 Stuckenschmidt, Sozialisierung der Musik.

19 Stuckenschmidt, Aktualitat und Ewigkeit.

20 Stuckenschmidt, Aktualitat und Ewigkeit.

21 Stuckenschmidt, Hanns Eisler.

22 Nabokov was the cousin of Vladimir Nabokov, author of the novel Lolita. Both were, like the entire Nabokov clan,

members of the landed aristocracy and haute bourgeoisie, and close to Tsar Alexander II. After the failure of the

war of intervention, Nabokov fled from the Red Army in April 1919 by way of Sevastopol, a port on the Crimean

peninsula, via Greece to Berlin, where he connected with other Russian emigrants.


Nabokov.23 While the content of these meetings cannot be known for certain, it would be

surprising if their conversations had not touched on the latest chapters of Soviet music

history, which had remained little known in the West during the upheavals of the pre-war

and wartime periods. Certain parallels were no doubt striking: for instance, that the early

phase of Soviet idealism24 had found a sudden end in 1932 with the doctrinaire implemen-

tation of socialist realism at about the same time that the golden age of art in the Weimar

Republic gave way to the Blut und Boden (blood-and-soil) aesthetic enforced by Nazi

ideologues.25 And, likewise, that Dmitri Shostakovich was confronted with the accusation

of petty bourgeois and sterile formalism (a denunciation presaged by the Stalin-instigated

criticism of his opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District) just two years before the 1938

Dusseldorf Entartete Musik (Degenerate Music) exhibition.26 For Nabokov and, it would

seem, now also Stuckenschmidt realism in both its socialist and National Socialist guises

was therefore stigmatized, in view also of the growing confrontation with the Soviet sphere

of influence (which did not make any effort to distance itself from its earlier aesthetic

imperatives). The impending culture war would require of artists a complete and exclusive

commitment to subjectivity. Moreover, the baby was thrown out with the bath water, in

that any artistic position that espoused collective responsibility and social relevance was to be

ostracized, including the various ways, developed during the Weimar Republic, of liberating

art from any kind of manipulation (von jedem Gangelbande).27

23 A pocket calendar for 1946, measuring 8 12 cm, shows the following entries: June 6, 4h, Nabokoff ; July 1, callNabokoff ; August 3, 21h at Nabokoff ; August 10, 10h at Nabokoff (see Archiv der Akademie der Kunste: Hans

Heinz Stuckenschmidt-Archiv, No. 2650). Unfortunately, the calendar for 1947 is not available.

24 Rosen, Aram Khachaturian, authors transcript.

25 Mathieu, Kunstauffassungen und Kulturpolitik im Nationalsozialismus.

26 [Unsigned] Sumbur vmesto muzki.

27 Adolph Hoffmann, Neue Bahnen im preuischen Ministerium fur Wissenschaft, Kunst und Volksbildung, in

Padagogische Zeitung: Hauptblatt des Deutschen Lehrervereins, 28 November 1918, p. 1; quoted in Kratz-Kessemeier,

Kunst fur die Republik, 21. As Kratz-Kessemeier notes, in a clear renunciation of an artistic policy in Prussia that was

governed by the state and closely linked to the personal regime of Wilhelm II (22), the Weimar Constitution

included in Article 142 the maxim of artistic freedom: Art, science and teaching are free. The state protects them

and supports their well-being (quoted at 34). In accordance with this principle Konrad Haenisch, Prussian Secretary

of Culture and Social Democrat (SPD), sketched in 1919 in an important speech Kulturpolitische Aufgaben

(Tasks of Cultural Policy) a democratic-pluralistic orientation of Prussian cultural politics: Our cultural life in

Prussia comes from thousands of tributaries. [. . .] It would indeed be extremely limiting and petty bourgeois to try

to control this multifaceted cultural life with a template of narrow factionalism. [. . .] I consider my most important

and most appealing task to nourish, organize and support the collaboration of all living cultural forces in our country

(Haenisch, Kulturpolitische Aufgaben, 11; emphasis original). Leo Kestenberg, an Independent Social Democrat

(USPD), had been appointed in December 1918 to the position of Head of the Division for Musikerziehung und

Musikpflege (Music Education and Musical Life) in the Prussian Ministry of Culture; being in the office for

fourteen years, he succeeded in convincing a young generation of composers of his idea (inspired by Schiller) of an

education towards humanism with and through music (Kestenberg, Bewegte Zeiten, 26). Kestenbergs comments

coincided with a distancing from expressionistic models, beginning approximately in the mid-1920s, on the part of

composers such as Ernst Krenek, Kurt Weill, and Paul Hindemith a convulsion that was a relief to us, as Weill

described it (see Hinton and Schebera, Kurt Weill Musik und Theater, 20) as well as a socially responsible turn to


A document supporting this thesis is a programmatic article by Stuckenschmidt that

appeared in November 1947 (thus only a few months after the Darmstadter Ferienkurse)

in the first issue of Stimmen,28 a magazine edited in Berlin with the support of Nabokov.

In the essay, characteristically entitled Mastabe (Standards), Stuckenschmidt renounces

the very aesthetic positions that he upheld during the Weimar Republic:

What to do? In order to create standards again and to awaken a sense for the laws

of composing and music-making, a strict schooling of the young is needed, and not

only of the young. It must be made clear to the widest circles of music listeners that

art cannot thrive in a one-sided relationship to extramusical aspects, to social,

economic, and psychological situations. As revealing as the disciplines of music

sociology are for the study of music history, the musical artwork itself is closed off

to them. For twelve years, we have been trained to despise and reject the principle

of lart pour lart (art for arts sake), until everybody believed that art did not have

its own laws. To correct this erroneous dogma even though, conditioned by the

times, by way of the opposing extreme of pure aestheticism is the most important

task of music education in the years ahead.29

It is clear that Stuckenschmidt not only accepted the justification for the change of para-

digm (a justification based on a particular, and ideologically driven, reading of historical

facts), but also its Gleichschaltung of cultural-political concepts. Nowhere is this better illus-

trated than in his characterization of Schoenberg. Stuckenschmidt would have known those

late works of Schoenberg that were saturated with political meaning (I myself have written

several pieces that are undeniably political: for instance, my Ode to Napoleon 30) as well as

Schoenbergs essay Heart and Brain in Music,31 which was sent to him personally by the

composer and which emphasizes the collaborative nature of reason and feeling in the

creative process. Nevertheless, Stuckenschmidt characterized Schoenberg, both during and

after his period of teaching at Darmstadt, as an artist whose brain ruled supreme (Das

Gehirn siegte auf der ganzen Linie32). He presented an image of Schoenberg as an apolitical

rationalist, thereby ironically coming close to confirming Soviet cliches. With this sleight

of hand he not only made Schoenberg the protagonist of formalism an aesthetic posi-

tion polemically stylized by Soviet chief ideologues as opposed to the correct, approved

works of music with an extremely broad array of stylistic diversity, including Gebrauchsmusik (music for use), taking

into consideration the interests of the entire community of workers (Kestenberg, Musikerziehung und Musikpflege,

99). Celebrating this pluralistic development, Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt ventured out as early as 1927 with the

enthusiastic statement: To single out what is common in our days would mean to deny what is best: the manifoldness

of appearances, the paradox of neighbouring phenomena, the incompatibility of styles! [. . .] How fantastic! How

immeasurable! (Stuckenschmidt, Sozialisierung der Musik, 72).

28 On the cover of several issues of Stimmen, Hermann Scherchen, Max Brod, Arnold Schoenberg, and Wilhelm Furt-

wangler, among others, are named as authors, as is Nicolas Nabokoff (New York).

29 Stuckenschmidt, Mastabe, 15.

30 Schoenberg, Contribution to the San Francisco roundtable.

31 Schoenberg, Heart and Brain in Music, 53.

32 Le Kisch, Darmstadter internationale Musikwochen.


path but also, in a certain sense, adopted the Manichaean aesthetic worldview of Soviet

propaganda.

It is perhaps an irony, therefore, that Stuckenschmidt, the anti-Schoenbergian fox of the

Weimar Republic, was given the task after World War II of guarding the geese, in that he

was commissioned by Martin Hurlimann of Atlantis Verlag to write a biography of the

composer. Stuckenschmidt later claimed in his autobiography that he was not approached

to write the book until July 1948;33 however, his correspondence with Hurlimann shows that

he agreed to write it a year earlier in June 1947.34 Already at the Darmstadter Ferienkurse in

July 1947, therefore, it would seem that Stuckenschmidt was preoccupied with positioning

Schoenberg as the agent of cultural change, as he put it,35 and appropriating the composer as

an involuntary symbol of formalism. It was this image of Schoenberg that Stuckenschmidt

would continue to propagate through such media institutions of occupied Germany as

RIAS (Radio im amerikanischen Sektor) Berlin and the papers Neue Zeitung and Stimmen.

The enterprise was furthered not only by Stuckenschmidt but also, later and with similar

justifications, by other influential contemporaries such as Heinrich Strobel, who already by

1947 had become a brother in spirit to Stuckenschmidt at Darmstadt,36 as well as Theodor

W. Adorno.37 That the effort succeeded is documented by Stuckenschmidts own comment

that by 1949 there was hardly anybody who dared not to compose dodecaphonically38 and

Carl Dahlhauss statement that twelve-tone technique has spread, almost epidemically,

since the Second World War.39

In the factional disputes that ensued in Darmstadt, Karl Amadeus Hartmann found him-

self between the cultural fronts of the Cold War formalism vs socialist realism that

became reality in the aesthetic discourse of the Western hemisphere after the stigmatization

of the characteristic features that Andrei Zhdanov, the chief ideologue of the Communist

Party in Moscow, had formulated as determinants of socialist realism.40 It is clear that this

33 Stuckenschmidt, Zum Horen geboren, 190.

34 Stuckenschmidt maintains in his autobiography that it was after their first encounter at the Festival of the Interna-

tional Society for Contemporary Music in Amsterdam (513 July 1948) that the Swiss publisher Martin Hurlimann

(Atlantis Verlag) commissioned him to write a biography of Schoenberg. However, Stuckenschmidts correspon-

dence suggests that Hurlimann had planted the seed for a Schoenberg biography already in a letter of 20 May 1947;

Stuckenschmidts agreement is dated 5 June 1947. The biography appeared in the year of Schoenbergs death in 1951

and was translated into several languages.

35 Stuckenschmidt, Das Problem Schonberg, 165.

36 Stuckenschmidt, letter to Heinrich Strobel, 12 July 1959.

37 Aspects of the Stravinsky section, written in 1948, of Adornos Philosophie der neuen Musik are redolent of contem-

poraneous critiques of socialist realism and the regimes espousing it. Immediately after finishing Philosophie der

neuen Musik, Adorno wrote Die gegangelte Musik (Music Manipulated), an essay with a clear anti-communist

bent, which was published not until 1953 in Der Monat, the German mouthpiece of the Congress for Cultural Freedom.

See Blomann, Nicht daruber reden .

38 Stuckenschmidt, Zum Horen geboren, 210.

39 Dahlhaus, Zum Spatwerk Arnold Schoenbergs, 21 (trans., 158).

40 See Keppler, Formalismus oder Sozialistischer Realismus, 23. Keppler surveys, in an exemplary diagram, the

characteristic features of formalism and socialist realism, using Zhdanovs protocol as a point of departure: see

especially Zhdanovs speeches to the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers (1934) and the Conference of Soviet


also meant the opening of a front against the composers of the Soviet hemisphere and the

urgent need for a revision of the respective standards of reception. And that is exactly what

the strategists Stuckenschmidt and Strobel had agreed on during their first post-war meet-

ing in Darmstadt: Dear Stuckenschmidt, I hope that you have returned to Berlin without

being too burned out [by the Darmstadt events]. Just to refresh our memory, I want to

remind you again of the next articles that I trust I will get from you for MELOS. And about

which we have an overall agreement, dont we? 1) Shostakovich, 2) Formalism.41

In November 1947 Melos therefore published, as agreed, three essays on Shostakovich in

what amounted to a special issue on the leading Soviet composer, who was admired by

Hartmann. As was to be expected, Shostakovichs aesthetic position was denounced, not

only by Stuckenschmidt but also by other authors, as outmoded. It is unlikely that he has

an impact outside of Russia. The music of that part of the world has moved in a different

direction, which, because of the mass appeal of Shostakovichs (in some ways) astonish-

ing talent, cannot be reversed.42 Equally noteworthy in this regard are two comments by

Edmund Nick, who later served as director of music at West German Radio (WDR) from

1952 to 1956. In July 1946 he considered Shostakovich a symphonist of high merits,43

whereas twenty-two months later he articulated a complete volte face : I do not know

whether Shostakovich is a good composer. According to his reputation, it may be true. But

I know better composers who are not Communists.44

IIIIf Hartmann, with his antifascist orientation anchored in an undogmatic socialism, was

destined initially to serve cultural life in post-war Germany, he must have been afraid that

his very different political and aesthetic perspectives (which were increasingly difficult to

communicate) would make him suspect as a fellow traveller of the opposing ideological

camp. He must have seen the writing on the wall, especially after the restoration of anti-

communist animosities and in view of the suspicion with which he was met by his fellow

composers, who, after Wilhelm Furtwanglers professional rehabilitation on 30 April 1947,

considered themselves exculpated as well. His experiences in Darmstadt were already an

unmistakable signal, as Hans Werner Henze, a Fortner student who was present in Darmstadt

in 1947, recalled in detail decades later: Hartmanns charming colleagues and contem-

poraries tried to push him, together with Hermann Scherchen, into the red corner. People

were encouraged, as it were, not to attend the concert.45

Music Workers (1948) (On Literature, Music and Philosophy, 918, 5275). For socialist realism, this meant, among

other things, music that was programmatic, patriotic, organically linked with the people (57), easily intelligible, and

beautiful, capable of be[ing] accepted by the normal human ear and with the correct interaction of the various

elements of music, namely melody, harmony, and rhythm (72). It should have the aim of satisfying the aesthetic

requirements and artistic tastes of the [. . .] people (68).

41 Strobel, letter to Stuckenschmidt, 4 August 1947.

42 Stuckenschmidt, Notizen zu Schostakowitsch, 376.

43 Nick, Musik in Munchen.

44 Nick, Musikalische Streifzuge. See also Streller, Die Wirkung der Musik Dmitri Schostakowitschs.

45 Henze, conversation with the author, 4 November 2004.


Dangers of this nature lurked in the background from the end of 1947 onwards, especially

in view of Bavarian regional politics: Hans Ehard, the governor of Bavaria, causing political

waves with an inflammatory speech,46 had made no secret of his anticommunism, and the

same was true of Alois Hundhammer, his Secretary for Culture, whose views were articu-

lated in an interview in Frankfurter Hefte.47 Stuckenschmidt later recalled: I had a choice

to make and decided in favour of the American side.48 In the same way, a bit later than

Stuckenschmidt, Karl Amadeus Hartmann saw himself (after the Darmstadt experiences

and because of the ominous restoration of anticommunist animosities) forced into a situa-

tion where he had to make a decision.

The political representatives of the Western zones of Germany and most of Hartmanns

colleagues had already fallen into line with US-sponsored values some time earlier. Should

he do the same, or should he follow his brother and others, who, after the repressions of

the Nazi regime, had chosen to settle in the Soviet zone on their return from exile in

Switzerland? Faced with these alternatives, Hartmann decided to stay in his home town,

Munich. Several reasons may have led him to this decision: on the one hand he recognized

early on that artistic life in the East was threatened by repression, and he had had some bad

personal experiences with old comrades, who often posed with the narrow-minded smugness

of returned emigrants; on the other hand he found decidedly pleasant his encounters with

the American cultural officers, who not only convinced him with their daily display of their

understanding of democracy but also gave him enthusiastic reports of Roosevelts New Deal

era and instilled in him a more relaxed attitude towards capitalism. Socialism had meant,

not only for him, a spiritual vanishing point during the long years of Nazi rule; now

he was able to observe the social realities of both competing systems as well as meet their

representatives, and what he experienced made him correct his earlier worldview. It was a

46 Ehard, Freiheit und Foderalismus, 17. Here is an excerpt: We suffer endlessly from wishy-washy-ness, reinterpreta-

tion and devaluation of concepts. Whoever, and for whatever reasons and emotions, calls himself a socialist and

considers socialism a blueprint for the future economic and social development of the world must be clear that

socialism, generated from the philosophical ideas of historical materialism and showing up in whatever form

(whether integral or revisionist), leads, by necessity, to the path of a collective economy and thereby to authoritarian

and totalitarian forms of government. Whoever wants to take the direction to democracy must renounce this path,

and it is about time that democrats stop characterizing their social convictions as socialism. The excerpt, quoted

here from a reproduction in the Archiv fur Christlich-Soziale Politik der Hanns-Seidel Stiftung, led, because of the

last sentence quoted here, to a break-up of the Grand Coalition of the CSU and SPD in Bavaria in 1947.

47 Guggenheimer, Das Portrat: Alois Hundhammer, 1143. Hundhammer is portrayed as follows: First of all, he con-

siders himself the most fearful enemy of the Bolshevist worldview and politics, and he is tempted to consider every

attack on him as influenced by Communist powerbrokers. He even imagines things that appear nave to outsiders,

and knows of press conferences in which groups of completely average bourgeois people are fed with slogans

by Communist representatives. Eager rather than discreet informants seem to feed him with notes about the

communist past and activities of even insignificant people.

48 Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt, interview with Hans Bunte, 2022 July 1982. It was recorded for the ZDF (Zweites

Deutsches Fernsehen) series Zeugen des Jahrhunderts (Witnesses of the Century) and broadcast as well as published

in an abbreviated form. The passage cited here, however, was neither broadcast nor published, and is documented

only in the transcript of the entire conversation. I am grateful to Hans Bunte for passing on to me a copy of the

document.


step that subsequently cast him in the role of a leftie without a homeland (heimatloser

Linker)49 and forced him into what Heister considers his inner emigration after 1945,50

in terms of both politics and aesthetics. His decision may have been influenced by the

reports of socialists who had broken away: in Hartmanns library can be found Ein Gott

der keiner war, a German translation of The God that Failed, a 1949 volume containing six

essays by writers (including Andre Gide and Arthur Koestler) who had abandoned their

belief in communism. This decision, which even necessitated the painful break with his

brother, nevertheless became the point of departure for an artistic development whose para-

digmatic potential cannot be underestimated.

Hartmanns decision meant, as the Darmstadt events had foreshadowed, a painful com-

promise that took its toll and forced him, as his friend Hans Werner Henze put it after his

death, to neutralize himself: in other words, to distance himself from not only the political

but also the aesthetic imperatives of the socialist world.51 It is for this reason that Hartmann,

after the eye-opening event in Darmstadt, and after his disillusioned abandonment of post-

war hopes, suppressed the politically charged subtitle on the posters for the repeat per-

formance of his Symphonische Ouverture China kampft in Munich in the autumn of 1947,

and a point that is even more significant in view of the aesthetic reorientation of West

Germany expressly distanced himself in the programme booklet from any characteriza-

tion of the work as programme music.

The Symphonische Ouverture, with the title China kampft, was written in 1942 and

consists of two parts, each of which begins with a similar introduction. The first

part is a broadly conceived Adagio followed by the main movement: a theme with

three variations. The idea of the work aims to be an essay in a special form on the

path to a large-scale one-movement orchestral composition; at the same time it is

an attempt to portray the idea of eternal humanity in contrast to uncontrolled

urges and struggles a portrayal which ends with the belief in the victory of stronger

and purer powers. The architecture of the piece, however, is based on musical germ

cells and their potential for development, and is not experienced as programme

music.52

49 This self-characterization of Hartmanns was transmitted orally through the composers son, Dr Richard P. Hartmann.

50 Heister, Karl Amadeus Hartmanns innere Emigration .

51 Henze, Laudatio, 13.

52 Die Symphonische Ouverture, mit dem Titel China kampft, wurde im Jahre 1942 geschrieben und besteht aus

zwei Teilen, die jeweils mit einer gleichbleibenden Introduktion beginnen. Der erste Teil ist ein breit angelegtes

Adagio, ihm folgt der Hauptsatz. Thema mit drei Variationen. Die Idee des Stuckes zielt auf den Versuch einer

besonderen Form auf dem Weg der groen einsatzigen Orchesterkomposition hin und ist zugleich ein Versuch, die

Idee der ewigen Menschlichkeit im Gegensatz zu den entfesselten Trieben und Kampfen darzustellen eine Darstel-

lung, die mit dem Glauben an den Sieg der starkeren und reineren Krafte endet. Die Architektur des Stuckes

gehorcht aber musikalischen Keimzellen und ihren Entwicklungstendenzen und ist nicht als Programmusik

empfunden. I would like to thank Egon Voss for his efforts in obtaining for me a photocopy of the hitherto un-

obtainable programme book of the third Academy concerts, a copy of which is in the possession of the very helpful

Gerhard Seitz (whom I also thank).


This correction, however, was only the beginning of the revision of Hartmanns uvre

mentioned above. In the following years he eliminated from his works movements with a

bent towards programme music, especially movements of a political-confessional nature

or those pervaded by quotations of songs of the socialist movement. The remaining non-

suspect material he transferred to his revised six symphonies (which now carried just

neutral numbers). He even withdrew in their entirety compositions that he now con-

sidered had catered too much to the taste of audiences or that, in their truncated form,

had lost too much of their substance. To express oneself in a realistic, intelligible, or even

popular manner, as Jost Hermand correctly observes, was seen in these latitudes [i.e., the

Western hemisphere], at a time of increasingly sharper confrontation with socialist realism,

as increasingly totalitarian.53

A clear example of these revisionist practices is the fate of the Sinfoniae Dramaticae

(19413), the orchestral triptych of which China kampft made up the first panel. China

kampft itself was withdrawn after three performances and never played again in Hartmanns

lifetime. The second panel, Symphonische Hymnen, was not performed until 1975, more

than a decade after the composers death. Of the third panel, Vita nova, the Adagio first

movement was absorbed into the Second Symphony, while the remainder of the work was

suppressed. One reason for this would appear to be that it was to contain nine verses of

Shelleys Mask of Anarchy, declaimed by a speaker in Bertolt Brechts German translation.

In 1948 Hartmann wrote to his publisher Willy Muller: Vita nova cannot go to press at

the present time, since the military government has declared its doubts about a text that

has the potential to be incorrectly understood; for this reason it must be put to one side

for the moment.54

That aesthetic issues were seen as an important locus of ideological discourse can be illus-

trated by way of a contemporary statement by Dieter Sattler, State Secretary for Fine Arts in

the Bavarian Department of Culture, and thus Hartmanns superior. Sattlers estate, housed

in the Munich Institut fur Zeitgeschichte, contains a letter to the Bavarian Governor Hans

Ehard from 1950, in which he describes the importance of the position he had occupied

since February 1947: Art in all its manifestations (film, radio, concert, theatre, literature,

museum, exhibits, etc.) is one of the principal battlegrounds of the cold war.55

IVDespite the above-mentioned precautionary measure of removing the works subtitle, the

Munich performance of Symphonische Ouverture on 22 November 1947 saw Hartmann

confronted with another problem. After the concert, a review appeared in a seemingly in-

significant Munich high-school newspaper, Das Steckenpferd (The Hobby Horse). Its author

53 Hermand, Kultur im Wiederaufbau, 200.

54 Vita Nova kann z. Zt. nicht in Druck gehen, da die Mil. Regierung wegen eines evtl. falsch aufzufassenden Textes

Bedenken ausgesprochen hat und deshalb vorerst liegen bleiben muss (Hartmann, letter to Willy Muller, 19 May

1948).

55 Sattler, letter to Hans Ehard, 22 December 1950.


characterized Hartmann together with Kathe Kollwitz as the creator of a socialist approach

to art56 and, evidently in possession of insider information, correctly identified the principal

theme of the composition as a free reworking of a socialist song from the Chinese civil war.57

Alarm bells no doubt rang for Hartmann, for he knew all too well that the high-school

newspaper was printed by the same company as the Neue Zeitung and, with a print run of

ten thousand copies, was distributed as a model of democratic journalism in the service of

education in the entire American Zone. Das Steckenpferd was read not only by the students

parents, who belonged to the social elite and thereby constituted a significant secondary

circle of readers; it was also read by Alois Hundhammer, the Secretary for Culture (with

responsibility for education), as is confirmed by the fact that he regularly, and always con-

scientiously, responded to questions addressed to him by the editors. It would not have

required much imagination to predict how Hundhammer, a professed anticommunist,

would have reacted if news had reached him that the red Kapellmeister58 Scherchen had

performed with the Bavarian State Orchestra a work expressing solidarity with a Com-

munist party involved in the Chinese civil war, and that this political statement in music

was written by a composer receiving a salary from the State of Bavaria. It would have been

easy for Hundhammer to have allowed Hartmanns contract (subject to annual renewal

until his death) simply to expire. Hundhammer would only have had to veto an extension

of the contract when deciding on the annual theatre budget.59

No surprise, then, that Hartmann, shortly before the end of the year and a few weeks

before the latest possible date to give notice of termination (31 January 1948) out of

fear, as Heister surmises60 sent a Richtigstellung (correction) to the concert review

not only to the young music critic but also, copied for his information, to the Secretary for

Culture.61

In your review it says: The main theme of China kampft is the freely adapted

theme of a socialist song from the Chinese civil war. [. . .] The fact is that I took

as my theme an eight-bar (pentatonic) Chinese melody freely adapted by myself.

It has nothing to do with a socialist song.62

56 Kreile, Scherchen und China kampft . The review, so it seems, was based on information that Hartmann had

provided, casually and under the aegis of military governments re-education programme, to a small group of young

people in his home a year earlier, when the political lines had not yet been drawn (Kreile, Hartmann und wir

Jungen, 106).

57 Kreile, Scherchen und China kampft .

58 [Unsigned], Musik, die aus den Nahten platzt.

59 In the Stellenplan des Haushaltes der Bayerischen Staatstheater there is the following entry for Karl Amadeus

Hartmann for the 19478 season: Start of contract: 1 September 1947, deadline for giving notice: 31 January

[1948] for termination on 31 August [1948]. The rubric for decisions reads: There is consensus [within the Ministry]

not to terminate the contract.

60 Heister, Karl Amadeus Hartmanns innere Emigration , 161.

61 Hartmann, letter to Reinhold Kreile, 27 December 1947.

62 Quoted in Wagner (ed.), Musica Viva, 272.


VEven though he lived in the same city, Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt never again met his old

friend Hanns Eisler, who had returned from his American exile via Vienna to East Berlin

because of anticommunist reprisals.63 Despite the fact that he lacked a high-school diploma,

Stuckenschmidt succeeded in becoming professor of music history and paradigm-setting

dean of West German music criticism,64 with his defence of elitist concepts of art focused

on a concept of progress. An umbrella organization for his activities was the Congress for

Cultural Freedom, founded in 1950 in West Berlin and equipped with generous financial

subsidies, which soon operated world-wide; its general secretary was Stuckenschmidts

friend Nabokov, with his many connections to influential politicians, cultural officials, and

artists, not only in West Germany. When the American press revealed in the mid-1960s that

the paradigmatic campaign for atonal music and abstract painting65 had been financed by

the American CIA, the dismay of all those freedom fighters who had not been let in on the

secret knew no bounds.

Karl Amadeus Hartmann, however, viewed the aesthetic concessions he had to make

to secure his livelihood as a regrettable compromise. Looking back in melancholy on the

cultural situation during the war and pre-war years and clairvoyantly diagnosing the de-

pendence of aesthetic on political discourses, he wrote as early as 1950 to the Stravinsky

biographer Herbert Fleischer: The movement of Weill, Hindemith, and Eisler has, unfor-

tunately, not found a continuation. In the confrontation between East and West, all such

problems died away.66 In view of the developments sketched here, it is no wonder that

Hartmann, even before the revelations about the Congress for Cultural Freedom and

shortly before his death in 1963, looked back in bitterness:

Whoever thinks that repressions would have stopped with the end of the Nazi era

does not know life. [. . .] Thus, the necessity during the postwar era to provide

information to a public that has been manipulated for twelve years generated a

concert agency for modern works. It has grown, in the meantime, into a seven-

headed Hydra, which threatens to devour its own father.67

Immediately afterwards he cites two lines from Goethes poem Urworte: Orphisch: So

sind wir scheinfrei denn nach Jahren / Noch enger dran, als wir am Anfang waren. (It only

seems as if were free, years hem us in, constraining more than at our origin.)68

63 Theodor W. Adorno also broke off his friendship with Eisler. The correspondence stops in 1950; there was one last

clandestine meeting, initiated by Eisler, in Frankfurt in 1957 (see Schebera, Unsere alte, auf 1925 zuruckdatierende

Freundschaft . . . ).

64 Nyffeler, Vom Grokritiker zum Parteiganger der Avantgarde, 48.

65 Minow, Benutzt und gesteuert, authors transcript.

66 Hartmann, letter to Herbert Fleischer, 16 March 1950.

67 Hartmann, Uber mich selbst, 36.

68 Hartmann, Uber mich selbst, 36. The part of the poem Hartmann cites from is ANANKE (Notigung, i.e.,

constraint or coercion). Hartmann may have cited it from memory, because his wording is slightly different from

Goethes original.


Karl Amadeus Hartmanns aesthetic evolution in the decades after World War II thus

sheds further light on the way in which new music in the West was under illusions as to

the true extent of its autonomy and freedom. The boom enjoyed by autonomous art after

World War II, epitomized in music by the Schoenberg renaissance and continued in the

works of composers who adopted serial principles more or less dogmatically,69 was not

simply the glorious manifestation of a world spirit returning to itself after the fascist era,70

but was deeply enmeshed in the cultural Cold War between East and West. The famous

maxim attributed to the Minnesinger Walther von der Vogelweide, Wes Brot ich ess, des

Lied ich sing (loosely translated as Whoever pays the piper calls the tune), was turned

by Adorno, one of the chief proponents of the autonomous work of art in the twentieth

century, into a negative yardstick for measuring artistic integrity. It is the sharpest objection

one can raise against any kind of art that wants to preserve its claim to truth!71 As scholars

become increasingly aware of the political factors that assisted avant-garde music in taking

root after World War II, we can see that Adornos objection might apply equally to the

music that he was so eager to defend, and to its composers, who proudly saw their musical

material as resisting the mere appeal to listeners.

BibliographyAdorno, Theodor W. Die gegangelte Musik, in Dissonanzen: Musik in der verwalteten Welt. Gottingen: Vanden-

hoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. 4661.. Philosophie der neuen Musik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1991. Trans. Robert Hullot-Kentor. Minneapolis: Uni-

versity of Minnesota Press, 2006.. Atonales Intermezzo?, in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 18, ed. Rolf Tiedemann und Klaus Schultz. Frankfurt:

Suhrkamp, 1997. 8897.. Jene zwanziger Jahre, in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 10/2, ed. Rolf Tiedemann and Klaus Schultz. Frankfurt:

Suhrkamp, 1997.Beal, Amy C. Negotiating Cultural Allies: American Music in Darmstadt 19461956. Journal of the American

Musicological Society 53/1 (2000), 10539.. New Music, New Allies: American Experimental Music from Zero Hour to Reunification. Berkeley: University

of California Press, 2006.Blomann, Ulrich J. Karl Amadeus Hartmann am Scheideweg: ein deutscher Komponist zwischen demokratischer

Erneuerung und Kaltem Krieg, 19451947. Diss., Technische Universitat, Dortmund, 2008.. Nicht daruber reden: der Strawinsky-Teil in Adornos Philosophie der neuen Musik Strategien des

Kalten Kriegs. http://www.liquidmusicology.org/nicht-darueber-red.html (accessed 11 October 2012).Boulez, Pierre. Schonberg est mort, in Releves dapprenti, ed. Paule Thevenin. Paris: Seuil, 1966. 26572.Carroll, Mark. Music and Ideology in Cold War Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Claudius, Matthias. Werke in einem Band. Munich: Winkler, 1976.Dahlhaus, Carl. Zum Spatwerk Arnold Schonbergs, in Die Wiener Schule heute: neun Beitrage, ed. Carl Dahlhaus.

Mainz: Schott, 1983. 1932. Trans. Derrick Puffett and Alfred Clayton in Dahlhaus, Schoenberg and the NewMusic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 15668.

69 We do not want to conduct a ridiculous demonization, but only to exhibit the most basic form of common sense

when we say that, after the discoveries of the Second Viennese School, any composer is useless who positions himself

outside of serial investigations. [. . .] Whoever feels the need to contradict me in the name of so-called freedom fails to

see that this freedom strangely resembles a former servitude (Boulez, Releves dapprenti, 271; authors translation).

70 I am alluding here to Adornos verdict on the late 1920s, in which he saw a world spirit that has gone astray (literally:

that is no longer with the spirit) (Weltgeist, [der] nicht mehr mit dem Geist ist; Adorno, Jene zwanziger Jahre,

503).

71 Adorno, Atonales Intermezzo, 90.


Ehard, Hans. Freiheit und Foderalismus: Grundsatzliches aus einer Rede, gehalten auf dem Parteitag der Christlich-Sozialen Union in Bayern am 30. August 1947 in Eichstatt. Munich: Pflaum, 1947.

Evarts, John. SUBJECT: Special Report Music Control in Bavaria June 1945 to July 1946. Bayerisches Haupt-staatsarchiv, Munich, OMGBY 10/481/4, 16.

Fortner, Wolfgang, and others. Kranichsteiner Ferienkurse fur neue Musik. Melos 14/13 (1947), 38992.Guggenheimer, Walter Maria, and the editors. Das Portrat: Alois Hundhammer. Frankfurter Hefte: Zeitschrift fur

Kultur und Politik 2/11 (1947), 11418.Haenisch, Konrad. Kulturpolitische Aufgaben: aus dem Vortrag des Kulturministers Konrad Haenisch gehalten Montag,

den 3. Februar 1919 in der Handelshochschule zu Berlin. Berlin: Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur staatsburgerliche undwirtschaftliche Bildung, 1919.

Hartmann, Karl Amadeus. Letter to Reinhold Kreile, 27 December 1947. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich,Ana 407.

. Letter to Willy Muller, 19 May 1948. Barenreiter-Archiv, Kassel.. Letter to Herbert Fleischer, 16 March 1950. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, Ana 407.. Uber mich selbst, in Kleine Schriften. Mainz: Schott, 1965. 3441.Heister, Hanns Werner. Karl Amadeus Hartmanns innere Emigration vor und nach 1945: die Symphonische

Ouverture China kampft , in Exilforschung: ein internationales Jahrbuch, vol. 12: Aspekte der kunstlerischeninneren Emigration 19331945, ed. Claus-Dieter Krohn, Erwin Rotermund, Lutz Winckler, and Wulf Koepke.Munich: edition text & kritik, 1994. 15673.

Helm, Everett. Wiederaufbau des deutschen Musiklebens nach 1945 und Paul Hindemith. Hindemith-Jahrbuch9 (1980), 13036.

Henze, Hans Werner. Laudatio, in Karl Amadeus Hartmann und die Musica Viva, ed. Wagner. 1119.Hermand, Jost. Kultur im Wiederaufbau: die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 19451965. Munich: Piper, 1986.Hinton, Stephen and Jurgen Schebera, eds. Kurt Weill Musik und Theater: Gesammelte Schriften. Berlin:

Henschelverlag, 1990.Hochgeschwender, Michael. Freiheit in der Offensive? Der Kongre fur kulturelle Freiheit und die Deutschen.

Munich: Oldenbourg, 1998.Jaschinski, Andreas. Karl Amadeus Hartmann: symphonische Tradition und ihre Auflosung. Munich: Katzbichler,

1982.Keppler, Diana. Formalismus oder Sozialistischer Realismus: Musikasthetik in der SBZ/DDR von 1945 bis 1953.

Magisterarbeit, Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin (Philosophische Fakultat III, Institut fur Kultur- und Kunstwis-senschaften, Musikwissenschaftliches Seminar), 2003.

Kestenberg, Leo. Musikerziehung und Musikpflege. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1921.. Bewegte Zeiten. Wolfenbuttel and Zurich: Moseler, 1961.Kilenyi, Edward. Letter to the Office of Military Government for Bavaria, Information Control Division, Music

Control, 7 March 1946. Karl Amadeus Hartmann-Gesellschaft, Munich.Koestler, Arthur, Ignazio Silone, Andre Gide, Louis Fischer, Richard Wright, and Stephen Spender. The God That

Failed: Six Studies in Communism. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1949. Ger. trans., Ein Gott, der keiner war.Konstanz, Zurich, and Vienna: Europa-Verlag, 1950.

Kratz-Kessemeier, Kristina. Kunst fur die Republik: die Kunstpolitik des preuischen Kultusministeriums 1918 bis1932. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2008.

Kreile, Reinhold. Scherchen und China kampft . Das Steckenpferd 2/1112 (1947), 13.. Hartmann und wir Jungen, in Karl Amadeus Hartmann und die Musica Viva, ed. Wagner. 1068.Le Kisch, V. Darmstadter internationale Musikwochen. Suddeutsche Zeitung, 26 August 1947.Mann, Thomas. Die Entstehung des Doktor Faustus, Roman eines Romans. Amsterdam: Bermann-Fischer, 1949.

Trans. Richard and Clara Winston as The Story of a Novel: the Genesis of Doktor Faustus. New York: Knopf,1961.

Mathieu, Thomas. Kunstauffassungen und Kulturpolitik im Nationalsozialismus. Saarbrucken: Pfau, 1997.Minow, Hans Rudiger, prod. Benutzt und gesteuert: Kunstler im Netz der CIA. TV documentary, Minow-Film for

ARTE/ZDF, 29 November 2006.Nick, Edmund. Musik in Munchen. Neue Zeitung, 12 July 1946.. Musikalische Streifzuge. Munchner Tagebuch, 15 July 1948.Nyffeler, Max. Vom Grokritiker zum Parteiganger der Avantgarde: die deutsche Musikkritik in den ersten

Nachkriegsjahrzehnten, in Geschichte der Musik im 20. Jahrhundert: 19451975, ed. Hanns-Werner Heister.Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 2005. 4852.

Raddatz, Fritz J. Feindkultur Kunst im geteilten Deutschland: eine ZEIT-Serie. Die Zeit 426 (1999).Rosen, Peter, prod. Aram Khachaturian: a Film by Peter Rosen (2003), adapted for ARD/WDR, 2004; DVD,

Euroarts 205 8278, 2011.


Sattler, Dieter. Letter to Hans Ehard, 22 December 1950. Institut fur Zeitgeschichte, Munich, ED 145/14.Saunders, Frances Stonor. Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War. London: Granta, 1999.Schebera, Jurgen. Hanns Eisler im USA-Exil. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1978.. Unsere alte, auf 1925 zuruckdatierende Freundschaft . . .. AdornoEisler: ein spannungsvolles Verhaltnis

uber vier Jahrzehnte im Spiegel von Brief- und Textzeugnissen, in Hanns Eisler, ed. Albrecht Dumling.querstand, 56. Frankfurt: Stroemfeld, 2010. 4272.

Schoenberg, Arnold. Contribution to the San Francisco roundtable discussion on modern art, 8 April 1949.Arnold Schoenberg Center, Vienna, 16/C, 48/R7, 99/R7; recording and transcription available online at.Ger. trans. in Stil und Gedanke: Aufsatze zur Musik, ed. Ivan Vojtech. Frankfurt: Fischer, 1976. 3926.

. Heart and Brain in Music (1946), in Style and Idea, ed. Leonard Stein. London: Faber & Faber, 1975. 5376.

Schnelting, Karl B., ed. Zeugen des Jahrhunderts Portrats aus dem Musikerleben: Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt,Ernst Krenek, Rolf Liebermann. Frankfurt: Fischer, 1987.

Shreffler, Anne C. Berlin Walls: Dahlhaus, Knepler, and Ideologies of Music History. Journal of Musicology 20/4(2003), 498525.

Smedley, Agnes. Chinese Destinies. New York: Vanguard Press, 1933.. China Fights Back: an American Woman with the Eighth Route Army. London: Victor Gollancz, 1938.Streller, Friedbert. Die Wirkung der Musik Dmitri Schostakowitschs im Deutschland der zwanziger bis funfziger

Jahre, in Bericht uber das Internationale Dmitri-Schostakowitsch-Symposion Koln 1985, ed. Klaus WolfgangNiemoller and Vsevolod Zaderackij. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1986. 51627.

Strobel, Heinrich. Letter to Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt, 4 August 1947. Heinrich Strobel-Nachlass, Sudwestrund-funk-Archiv, Baden-Baden.

. Letter to Rene Leibowitz, 7 August 1948. Heinrich Strobel-Nachlass, Sudwestrundfunk-Archiv, Baden-Baden.

Stuckenschmidt, Hans Heinz. Sozialisierung der Musik. Vossische Zeitung [Berlin], 19 February 1927.. Aktualitat und Ewigkeit. Vossische Zeitung, 8 September 1928.. Hanns Eisler. Anbruch 10/5 (1928), 1637.. Das Problem Schonberg. Melos 14/6 (1947), 1615.. Mastabe. Stimmen 1/1 (1947), 1215.. Notizen zu Schostakowitsch. Melos 14/13 (1947), 3746.. Arnold Schonberg. Zurich and Freiburg: Atlantis, 1951.. Letter to Heinrich Strobel, 12 July 1959. Heinrich Strobel-Nachlass, SWR-Archiv, Baden-Baden.. Zum Horen geboren: ein Leben mit der Musik unserer Zeit. Munich: Piper, 1979.. Stuckenschmidt in conversation with Hans Bunte, 2022 July 1982. Transcription in possession of the

author.Tretyakov, Sergei Mikhailovich. A Chinese Testament: the Autobiography of Tan Shih-hua. London: Victor Gollancz,

1934.Truman, Harry S. Memoirs, vol. 2: Years of Trial and Hope (19461953). Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956.Wagner, Renata, ed. Karl Amadeus Hartmann und die Musica Viva. Mainz: Schott, 1980.Wellens, Ian. Music on the Frontline: Nicholas Nabokovs Struggle against Communism and Middlebrow Culture.

Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.Zhdanov, A. A. On Literature, Music and Philosophy. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1950.[Unsigned] Sumbur vmesto muzki: ob opere Ledi Makbet Mtsenskogo Uyezda D. Shostakovicha. Pravda, 28

January 1936. Trans. in Strunks Source Readings in Music History, rev. edn, vol. 7: The Twentieth Century, ed.Robert P. Morgan. New York: Norton, 1998. 1279.

[Unsigned] Musik, die aus den Nahten platzt: neue Tone im alten Schlo. Der Spiegel, 2 August 1947.


TCM 09 BLOMANN & THYM (2012) a Semblance of Freedom- Hartmann Cold War

Documents

Transcript of TCM 09 BLOMANN & THYM (2012) a Semblance of Freedom- Hartmann Cold War