In March 1831, a large number of musicians in the city of Hamburg met in a pub on the GroÃer Neumarkt to form an association. The result of this initiative was the Hamburg Musiciansâ Association (Hamburger Musikerverein), whose task was to fight for the âimprovement of membersâ material lot and the elevation of the art of musicâ. Its statutes stipulated, among other things, that association members were only allowed to make music with other members.1 In addition, members were forbidden from taking their association colleaguesâ jobs. The monthly membership fee was set at one schilling.2
The association initially had around 150 members, the vast majority of them freelancers. At first, the cityâs political elite wanted nothing to do with this new body and refused to give it any support at all. But this did nothing to hold it back. Once the association had established a health insurance fund, more and more musicians, primarily working in theatre, joined it.3 More prominent artists too were soon paying greater attention to the new organization: when the homes of many musicians were destroyed in the devastating fire of May 1842, pianist Ignaz Moscheles held a charity concert in London and donated the proceeds of around 10,000 marks to the Hamburg association. A pension fund was launched eight years later. One of the bodyâs first members was Johann Jacob Brahms, father of famous composer Johannes. Until the introduction of freedom of trade in February 1865 and the more liberal freedom of movement regulations associated with it, the association was evidently able to provide the kind of safety net it had in mind. One innkeeper who booked non-local musicians to provide the music for an evening dance soon found out what this meant: he had to pay a heavy fine after the chairman of the Musiciansâ Association called in the Hamburg police.4
The Hamburg association was one of the first of its kind in the German lands,5 and its foundation is early evidence of an incipient shift of awareness within the profession. The notion of a body advocating on behalf of musicians as a whole and fostering their social advancement, independent of a specific group of musicians, was new. Accordingly, the association was open to all musicians, regardless of their employment situation and musical activities. Nor did the association have a specific aesthetic agenda beyond its goal â phrased in rather general terms â of âelevating the art of musicâ. Its links with leading virtuosos in the classical concert business were just as evident as its provisions for musicians who played in pubs and at dances.
The Hamburg body undoubtedly played a pioneering role, though initially it remained one of a kind. It was not until thirty years later that the General German Music Association (Allgemeiner Deutscher Musikverein or ADMV) was established in Weimar, its founders inspired by a desire for social reform. The foundation of the General German Musiciansâ Union (Allgemeiner Deutscher Musikerverband or ADEMUV) followed in 1872. These two bodies were to have a substantial influence on musical life and on musiciansâ lifeworld in the German Empire and beyond. This chapter examines the motives for their formation, discusses their core characteristics and objectives, and illuminates how they were interrelated.
I argue that the driving force for the establishment of both was the discovery of the social. The conviction that the development of musical life required active participation by an organized force made up of those directly involved in the process of artistic production inspired the creation of both the Music Association in Weimar in 1861 and the Musiciansâ Union in Berlin eleven years later. The later union was a break-away from the earlier association, so both grew out of the same basic impulses. The ADMV opted for an aesthetic approach to reform. It was mainly concerned with the advancement of art and the promotion of those artists who could contribute to this. Performing musicians played a merely subordinate role here. While sharing these artistic objectives in principle, the ADEMUV essentially emulated the Hamburg pioneers and sought to represent all members of the profession, a focus that went hand-in-hand with a reversal of the ADMVâs priorities. In Berlin, the social question took precedence over artistic imperatives.
The two associationsâ different priorities must, however, be understood as the result of years of disputes and not, as hitherto, as having developed largely independently. It was the failed attempt to address holistically the social realities of the profession within the Music Association that gave rise to this institutionalized division of labour within musical life between art and labour, between aesthetic discourse and socio-political agitation.6 Precisely because these fields remained closely related in musiciansâ lifeworld, the class struggle within the profession was put on hold. In fact, in its founding phase, the Musiciansâ Union exhibited some notable similarities with the social-liberal trade union movement around Max Hirsch and Franz Duncker; this common ground makes it seem reasonable to place it within the same political spectrum of moderate left-liberalism.
Liszt, Wagner and the Allgemeiner Deutscher Musikverein
Franz Liszt was one of the driving forces behind the initiative to found the General German Music Association. The piano virtuoso and composer distinguished himself as an advocate for the arts and as a visionary musical reformer.7 This he did through his writings, but at a more practical level he was one of the first to vigorously promote musiciansâ social interests.8 Essentially, however, he campaigned only for those musicians whom he recognized as artists. This is particularly clear in the debate on so-called interlude music, that is, those pieces performed by members of court and municipal theatre orchestras between the acts of a play, while the members of the audience chatted or refreshed themselves. Richard Wagner, also a founding member of the ADMV, had condemned these break-fillers wholesale in 1849:
The livelier portion of the audience derides and mocks this music when it arrests attention by its importunity or dullness, but deliberately or involuntarily stops its ears to it as a rule. Now judge the effect which these evils combine to produce on the bandsmen! The sleepy, older bandsman grows still sleepier at such performances, the younger, fierier one feels a positive hell-torment in being bound thereto. To have to cast his beloved art before an audience either talking aloud or yawning, must enrage him to begin with, demoralise him to end with. For the honour of music, the honour of the play, and finally the honour of the public, this arrangement must be discontinued.9
Nothing less than orchestral musiciansâ artistic integrity was at stake here, and Franz Liszt took the same view. He defined interludes simply as âbad music made by good musiciansâ and added that even a âmoon-dwellerâ or a âman of the desert, such as Abdelkaderâ would immediately grasp what an impertinence it was to expect musicians to provide such a service.10 He went on to state that it was
against all notions of honour and ambition that spur men on to noble activity, to intelligent devoted zeal, that in the theatres [â¦] the orchestra â and the orchestra consists of [â¦] artists â is forced to prostitute itself [â¦] by regularly having to submit to the fatal habit of making a meÌtier out of art.11
This was not the first time Liszt had placed art in opposition to labour.12 But when it came to the specific case of incidental music, he made another, aesthetic contrast between serious art and playful entertainment: âWhat do we artists care for the promenade and garden concerts, all the establishments where people listen and eat or eat without listening?â Liszt soon answered his own question, stating that such venues, which were essentially unacceptable as settings for art music, would at least edify âthe uneducated, who are unable to ascend to an understanding of the higher regions of artâ.13
Lisztâs conclusion was crystal clear: interludes were perhaps a necessary evil but must not occur at the expense of the artist. Gone were the days, he contended, when court musicians alternated between orchestra pit and dining hall. Rather, orchestras should be rated as âgoodâ as soon as âthe elimination of mechanical playersâ had been achieved. Pfund the timpanist in Leipzig, Müller the double bass player in Darmstadt and Nabich the trombonist in Weimar, he went on, provided proof positive that even the âmost thankless of instrumentsâ were now being played by true artists and that they should no longer be expected to play âtable or dance musicâ. When it came to interludes, Liszt therefore called for âorchestral artistsâ to be replaced by military bands, and by formations dedicated to dance and promenade concerts or, if these were not available, for theatres to deploy the mechanical music of the barrel organ.14 In the debate on interlude music, Liszt and Wagner indicated, albeit unintentionally, that the status of art music was not determined solely by the musical work itself, but depended in large part on recognition as such by an appropriately art-loving audience. Serious music was not for everyone. It was not for every social occasion and was certainly not the business of every musician. This was the two composersâ message.15
This ideology was also the aesthetic bedrock of the General German Music Association. The idea of founding this body was conceived on the fringes of the Leipzig Convention of Musicians (Tonkünstlerversammlung) in 1859, which was convened on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik (âNew Journal for Musicâ); 340 musicians took part. Two years later, the process of foundation was completed in the presence of more than twice as many attendees in Weimar, where the association also established its headquarters. The reasons for creating this body emerge from the associationâs statutes: âThe world of music has reached a stage at which the need to emerge from the previous naturalism and progress towards self-confident organization is becoming increasingly clearâ, its preamble stated. It was high time for German musicians to join forces âfor their own sake and for the benefit of their artâ. The priority must now be to pool âthe scattered and thus fragmented forcesâ and commit them to the associationâs two main aims: the âcultivation of musical artâ and the âadvancement of musiciansâ.16
Although the statutes explicitly invoked musiciansâ unity, the General German Music Association has repeatedly been viewed as a lobbying organization for the so-called New German School.17 In addition to Liszt, who was court conductor in Weimar at the time, the driving forces behind the founding of the association were in fact Karl Franz Brendel, the Leipzig-based music historian and publisher of the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, and Königsberg-based musical director Louis Köhler â who was the true ideas man. All of them counted themselves members of the New German School, a term coined by Brendel in his address before the Leipzig convention in 1859 in an attempt to accommodate conceptually the very different music of composers Wagner, Liszt and Berlioz. With respect to the non-German representatives of this self-proclaimed avant-garde, however, it seems little better than the older term âmusic of the futureâ (Zukunftsmusik), which the concept of the New German School was supposed to replace in light of the widespread ridicule to which it had been subjected.18
The Leipzig assembly triggered a veritable trading of barbs. Johannes Brahms, Joseph Joachim and other musicians published a manifesto in May 1860 that railed against Brendelâs periodical and the New Germansâ attempt to set themselves up as sole legitimate authority on the aesthetics of music; this prompted Brendel to publish a satirical response in his journal.19 The underlying musical animosities were associated with preferences for different genres, which Brendel in particular envisaged as the answer to the Beethovenian challenge: the New Germans favoured novel forms such as symphonic poetry, other programme music and the musical drama embodied by Wagnerâs operas, whereas the supposedly conservative faction privileged older genres such as the symphony and chamber music. More important than the details of these opposing aesthetic visions, however, is the structural dissent itself, because it represented something fundamentally new that was to make a major impact on the (classical) music world: âSince the middle of the nineteenth centuryâ, writes Richard Taruskin, âthe world of classical music has been a world riven with political factions and contentious publicityâ.20
Despite or precisely because of this conflict, the call for unity associated with the founding of the association can be read in part as an olive branch held out to the New Germansâ opponents. In any case, the associationâs functions and objectives show that, regardless of these aesthetic debates, it addressed itself to all musicians who were serious about serious music. The association identified as its most important artistic activity the organizing of gatherings of musicians on a regular basis, as a means of
bringing these artists into closer personal proximity, delivering them from their fragmentation, providing isolated musicians with collegial support and stimulation, and thus â through general, mutual exchange of experiences and ideas about the ultimate aspirations of art â to awaken and strengthen an overall awareness.21
The gatherings, held at various locations in the German lands, were intended to provide an occasion for the performance of important new compositions or little-known pieces from the past as well as for talks by musicians, poets and writers on âthe challenges of the timeâ, in other words on artistic and social issues in contemporary musical life.22 The associationâs social engagement encompassed funding musiciansâ artistic education and supporting association members in the event of illness, impoverishment and other unforeseen blows of fate.23
Not only were all male musicians entitled to join the association, but so (explicitly) were all women musicians, even though they were not permitted to hold office. In addition, music critics, concert organizers, music dealers, instrument makers and music teachers could apply for membership, and even amateurs could be admitted if they had made an outstanding contribution to music in one way or another. However, decisions on membership were the preserve of the associationâs executive committee, which required applicants to undergo what amounted to an artistic aptitude test.24 Irrespective of the inclusive rhetoric found in the associationâs statutes, this was a manifestation of its elitist-exclusivist thrust, rooted in a specific aesthetics of music.
Despite its name, the ADMV ultimately sought to make an impact far beyond the German lands. Non-German musicians were very welcome to join and apparently did so in large numbers. As early as 1859, at the Musicianâs Convention in Leipzig, musicians from more than twenty nations signed a declaration of membership, including Swedes, Dutchmen, Swiss, Englishmen and US-Americans. At the same time, the founding fathers around Liszt and Brendel left no room for doubt that âGermany is currently the epicentre of the musical art as a wholeâ and that the association must therefore have âGermanâ in its name.25 Hence, even at the moment of the ADMVâs foundation, we can discern a peculiar âuniversalistic provincialismâ, which Jürgen Osterhammel has identified with reference to the example of Richard Wagnerâs activities and which he links to the dialectical simultaneity of nation-building and globalization at the start of the final third of the nineteenth century.26
But it was not just the German associationâs international character that was dialectical; so was its claim to represent musicians as a whole at the very moment when it suffered its first major row. As a dyed-in-the-wool Hegelian, association architect Brendel probably had a pretty good idea of what he was doing. In any case, the fact that the establishment of musiciansâ institutions striving for unity was essentially an indication of the growing, often conflict-ridden differentiation of this occupational group, was to become evident time and again over the following century. The founding of the General German Music Association marked the start of this development. In the main, however, it did not induce a split between the New German School and supposedly more conservative composers and musicians. Instead, as we will now see, a socially reformist group detached itself from the ADMV, one that consisted chiefly of performing musicians, while predominantly composers and teaching musicians concerned mostly with artistic issues remained in the association.
A Rendezvous with Hirsch and Schulze-Delitzsch
In 1861, the Music Association began its practical work. Brendel became chairman, while Liszt and Hans von Bülow were put in charge of artistic matters. After three years of association activity, its first report painted a fairly positive picture. The association now had 400 members and, according to its executive committee, had already done a lot to reunite the profession and assemble âproper artistsâ in one umbrella organization.27 Corresponding musical messages were soon discernible in the concerts held at the musiciansâ conventions (Tonkünstlerversammlungen). Joachimâs violin concerto was performed in Karlsruhe in 1864; at the so-called German Musiciansâ Congress (Deutscher Musikertag) in Leipzig in July 1869, the first of its kind, for the first time the ADMVâs programme included one of Brahmsâ compositions in the shape of the Geistliches Lied for chorus and organ. The dispute over the New German School thus seemed to have been shelved for the time being. The Musiciansâ Congress, however, harboured new potential for conflict, whose deep causes lay more in the social than aesthetic field.28
Rudolph Bensey came up with the idea of a Leipzig Musiciansâ Congress in July 1868 on the side-lines of the convention in Altenburg. Bensey was a Berlin-based music journalist and a good friend of Brendelâs. Originally, the pair had been wondering how Berlin, as a great city of music, could be won over to the ideas and compositions of the New German School. But Bensey, who was also active in the Berlin Tonal Artistsâ Association (Tonkünstlerverein), knew only too well that Berliners were largely immune to the lure of music, because âthey all think they have enough of it alreadyâ. According to the journalist, a different approach would be far more effective: âDiscussion of educational and social questions affecting musiciansâ circles. That kind of thing is particularly popular in Berlin.â He thus suggested holding a purely business-focused âMusiciansâ Congress without musicâ between the biennial conventions, with the former providing a venue for debate on educational and social issues that had been neglected due to lack of time.29
Bensey was not wrong in his assessment of Berlin musical circles. The metropolis had in fact developed into something of a social avant-garde in the course of the 1860s and by the end of the decade it was the spearhead of a supraregional musiciansâ movement from below; this reached its preliminary apogee in the establishment of the empire-wide General German Musiciansâ Union in September 1872. Although the leaders and large sections of the associated social movement in no way lagged behind members of the General German Music Association in terms of their artistic self-image, the new bodyâs emergence just as the empire was being established reflected a new division within the profession, one motivated less by aesthetic than social and thus ultimately political issues.
At first, however, it looked as if musicians might come together under the umbrella of Lisztâs association. A key role here was played by the Berlin musicians who had banded together to form a so-called Sickness and Provident Association (Kranken- und Unterstützungsverein) in 1867. Its foundation was prompted by the sudden death of the Berlin flautist Adam Paulsen, who had been employed at the Victoria Theatre. Having made no provision for such an eventuality, his death plunged his widow and six young children into destitution. Leading figures in Berlinâs musical life were involved in the founding of the association, including Louis Lewandowski, royal musical director and conductor of the synagogue choir, who took over the chairmanship, and conservatoire director Julius Stern. Two years later, this body already had over 600 members. More joined thanks to a monstre concert based on the Wieprecht model, featuring 500 active musicians. As a result, a pension and death benefit fund was set up in addition to the aforementioned sickness scheme.30
A few months later, Lewandowski travelled with Berlin-based conductor Hermann Thadewaldt and other association colleagues to the Leipzig Musiciansâ Congress organized by the ADMV. The Berlin and Dresden tonal artistsâ associations (Tonkünstlervereine), which had existed since 1844 and 1854 respectively, and which initially brought together musicians, educators and music lovers, sent delegates.31 Music teachers, cantors and music dealers rounded out the gathering in the HoÌtel de Prusse, in which around one hundred people took part; a remarkable third of the attendees were women.32 The pedagogical and social issues discussed at the first Musiciansâ Congress included, among other things, the introduction of music lessons in primary schools, the establishment of a state music authority to âpromote and oversee the artistic cultivation of musical artâ, and the need to improve the financial situation of concert institutes, music and choral societies and, last but not least, performing musicians.33
The participants welcomed these reformist ideas and resolved to set up bespoke committees in order to discuss them in detail by the time of the next Musiciansâ Congress and elaborate suitable proposals and measures. Only the issue of performing musicians required more extensive debate. Lewandowski suggested setting up a Reich-wide organization for this group that would oversee a unified system of death benefits, widowsâ pensions and old-age pensions. After a heated discussion, his proposal was finally accepted by a large majority. At the suggestion of the Music Associationâs new chairman, Carl Riedel, the plenum also passed a resolution stating that the German Musiciansâ Congress âtakes a keen interest in the well-being of performing musicians and would welcome any institution capable of promoting this well-beingâ. Among others, Lewandowski, Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch and Max Hirsch were elected to the committee set up to explore how to improve musiciansâ lot.34
The fact that the founding father of the German cooperative movement was present at the Leipzig Musiciansâ Congress may have had something to do with the proximity of the venue to his hometown of Delitzsch, though he had sat in the Prussian House of Representatives since 1859 and was a district judge in Potsdam. In addition, perhaps due to his upbringing, Schulze himself was very fond of music and could draw on relevant practical experience.35 But it is likely to have been chiefly socio-political rather than private motives that prompted the two social reformersâ trip to Leipzig. As a leading figure in the social-liberal trade union movement, Max Hirsch, with Schulze-Delitzschâs support, had succeeded just a few months earlier in amalgamating the cross-sectoral trade unions (Gewerkvereine) that were sprouting up throughout the German lands, especially in Prussia, into the Federation of German Trade Unions (Verband Deutscher Gewerkvereine).36 It seems a reasonable assumption that Hirsch and his colleague Schulze-Delitzsch wanted to go to Leipzig to find out whether musicians could find a new home in the trade union movement.
But apparently no relevant meetings took place. There is no evidence that Schulze-Delitzsch, Hirsch, Lewandowski and the other committee members ever got together to discuss the social and organizational issues affecting performing musicians. Another reason to doubt that they did is the fact that the committee was not mentioned at all two years later at the Musiciansâ Congress in Magdeburg, in contrast to all the others instituted in Leipzig.37 The encounter between the leading figures in the musiciansâ and social-liberal trade union movements seems to have been an isolated incident.
Berlin delegate Hermann Thadewaldt was in fact far from pleased with what he saw as the Musiciansâ Congressâs elitist approach. In view of the lack of participation by Leipzig musicians, without further ado he organized a parallel event for them. About fifty of them attended it. They were informed about the Berlin Sickness and Provident Association and its plans for a Germany-wide body, and at the end of the meeting a resolution was passed to set up a branch in Leipzig. Much like this reformist initiative pursued over the heads of those affected, however, Thadewaldtâs local efforts to attract interest initially fizzled out too because they were not followed up with concrete action.38 While the German trade union movement spawned a vast array of new organizations towards the end of the 1860s, in the summer of 1869 the time was evidently not yet ripe for musicians.
The first Musicians Congress, then, did not end particularly harmoniously and ultimately made little progress. But the Magdeburg Musiciansâ Congress held in autumn 1871 offered a second chance. The institutionalization of the musiciansâ movement from below had made good progress in the meantime: in the summer of 1869, the Berlin musicians had turned their Sickness and Provident Association into a general Union of Berlin Musicians (Verein Berliner Musiker), which was open to all musicians without distinction. After Thadewaldt, as the new association chairman, had rapidly and successfully concluded negotiations with Berlin theatres and innkeepers on fee increases, the Berliners launched a supraregional appeal encouraging musicians throughout Germany to join local music associations.
In parallel to this, Thadewaldt and his Berlin-based colleagues managed to put an end to the Musiciansâ Exchange (Musikerbörse) â a near-anarchic, open-air music market held daily between 11 a.m. and 12 noon at the so-called Musikantenwache. The Exchange was relocated to closed premises, access was tied to association membership and business transactions were monitored by that body. Finally, the Berliners brought out a journal called the Deutsche Musiker-Zeitung (âGerman Musiciansâ Newspaperâ) that was soon receiving national attention. The all-encompassing freedom of trade introduced a year earlier due to the emergence of the North German Federation, which was particularly comprehensive in scope for musicians, also helped ensure that the aforementioned appeal attracted a wide response: between 1869 and 1873, the number of musiciansâ associations in Germany grew to as many as forty, and almost all of these newly established bodies took their lead from the Berlin model.39
As a result, in addition to the Berlin association, delegates from all corners of the empire were present at the second Musiciansâ Congress in Magdeburg. Once again, however, the deliberations were greatly influenced by spokesmen for the ADMV and the Berlin associations. While there was no real progress with respect to the concerns raised at the first Musiciansâ Congress about music lessons in primary schools, agreement was reached on the role of the state in musical life. It should âformally recognize musicians as enjoying equal status with the other artistic professionsâ; a corresponding petition to the Reichstag was to be set in motion.40
But in the first instance, two new ideas seemed more important for the future of performing musicians. First, Julius Alsleben, chairman of the Berlin Tonal Artistsâ Association, called for the institutionalization of the Musiciansâ Congress and suggested that it be held every two years. Ideally, he envisaged this being done within the structures of the ADMV. In addition, following the example of the German Lawyersâ Conference (Deutscher Juristentag), which had existed since 1860, a permanent committee was to be established to conduct business between the musiciansâ congresses. This initiative met with a positive response; a panel was to elaborate it.41
Second, there was widespread opposition to Berlin musical director Karl Billertâs proposal that a musiciansâ union (Musikerverein) and a tonal artistsâ association (Tonkünstlerverein) be established in every city according to model statutes to be agreed upon. The general tenor was that this would foster unnecessary division, and Thadewaldt resolutely opposed the assumption âthat the musiciansâ unions are in some way inferior to the tonal artistsâ associationsâ, of which Karl Billert was a partisan. His colleagues Oskar Eichberg and Wilhelm Tappert were against model statutes and it was finally agreed to let the envisaged permanent committee give the matter its sympathetic consideration and to issue a non-binding recommendation that musiciansâ unions be established in German cities. Hence, no clear difference, let alone antagonism, between tonal artists and musicians, however it might be justified, was evident in Magdeburg.42
The fact that rank-and-file musicians seemed to pull together more in Magdeburg than at the Leipzig Musiciansâ Congress two years earlier was undoubtedly linked with the founding of the empire the same year. But once again, the commitment to a joint approach by the ADMV, tonal artistsâ and musiciansâ unions did not last long. Barely three weeks after the Magdeburg meeting, some within the Berlin Music Union began to suggest that it would be better not to wait for the panel set up by the Musiciansâ Congress to complete its lengthy deliberations, but to finally take action â a call heeded six months later, in April 1872. An announcement, whose authors were confident in their cause, was made in the Deutsche Musiker-Zeitung: âColleagues! The Union of Berlin Musicians has resolved to proceed with the establishment of a General German Musiciansâ Union. The need for such a union [â¦] surely requires no further explanation.â43
The appeal to all existing associations to join the new body met with a positive response, especially in northern Germany, such that representatives from Breslau, Bremen, Braunschweig, Dresden, Hamburg, Chemnitz, Cologne, Leipzig, Stettin and Vienna attended the founding conference in Berlin in September 1872. In addition, the ADMV sent a delegate, as did the Berlin and Dresden tonal artistsâ associations. Musiciansâ unions from another twenty-five cities, including Munich, Düsseldorf and Hanover, though not represented, had written to confirm that they would join the new body. The statutes were adopted without much discussion, and Hermann Thadewaldt was elected the first president of the General German Musiciansâ Union. Erstwhile conductor of a military band, at the time of his election he led the prestigious concerts in Berlinâs Zoological Garden. His deputies were former military musician Julius Bumke and Julius Stern, head of the eponymous, privately run conservatoire.44
The General German Musiciansâ Union
Until its dissolution in April 1933, the General German Musiciansâ Union was the most important body for performing musicians in Germany and over the course of its existence it did much to transform the musical lifeworld. To quote its statutes, the union aimed to âelevate and safeguard the intellectual and material interests and thus the social position of the musical profession, as well as promoting and cultivating public musical lifeâ.45 A number of measures were planned to achieve this. The union wished to build a tight organization, with a head office and local associations at the municipal level; obtain wage increases; set up an employment agency for members; establish a health, death benefits and provident fund; inform and educate people about all matters musical through a union newspaper; and finally, support the establishment of orchestral schools and other educational establishments.46
All German musicians could become members; foreigners were also allowed to join though with limited rights. What constituted a professionally active musician, however, was quite unclear. The term âprofessional musicianâ (Berufsmusiker) appeared nowhere in the statutes. All persons were entitled to join who were âconsidered native musiciansâ.47 The boundary separating their activities from amateurs and enthusiasts playing for fun thus remained fairly permeable. Every member had certain obligations: to refrain from fomenting competition among union members; to accept no work below determined fee rates; to play with other union members if possible; in case of engagements outside oneâs place of residence, to consult the local union branch; and finally, to sign only those contracts that provided for the mutual right of termination and payment of wages for at least eight weeks in the event of illness.48
With these membership obligations, the union was far ahead of its time. The requirements were so extensive that very few musicians will have been consistently able to meet them. This litany of duties did not, however, act as a deterrent. On the contrary, the union enjoyed rapid growth: after a year it already had 44 local branches and 5,000 members, and a year later almost 6,800 musicians were organized in 76 towns and cities. Details of the membership structure in the early days remain rather obscure, mainly because of the decentralized form of organization in the local branches. But we can paint a fairly clear picture by examining the centrally administered pension scheme, which was set up at the start of 1874 and was open to union members only.
This indicates that few female musicians had joined. Although women were not excluded as such â a woman harpist, pianist and singing teacher were among the 2,173 members of the pension fund in mid-1874 â it may be assumed that the union had only very few female members.49 Of the 2,170 men, many appear to have been ordinary musicians. In any case, the ADEMUV was not composed exclusively of a âmusical proletariatâ: only just over a third of members paid the minimum contribution of 15 silver groschen, while the other two thirds contributed a taler or even more. 134 musicians were employed in court orchestras, most of them in Dresden and St. Petersburg. From a musical point of view, everything that could be found on the stage at the time was represented, from conductors and military bandmasters through string, woodwind and brass players to timpanists, percussionists and harpists; music teachers, meanwhile, constituted a small minority.50
Above all, then, the ADEMUV established an umbrella organization for performing musicians, regardless of the individualâs employment situation, musical genre and social status, though not their gender. This was an umbrella that extended far beyond national borders. From the beginning of its existence, the union had an international focus. Outside the Reich, mainly German musicians founded local branches in Zurich, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Stockholm, Reval (present-day Tallinn), Monaco and Vyborg. St. Petersburg was the largest exclave, with 145 individual members, followed by Moscow (62), Warsaw (37) and New York (12). In 1874, one union member was even listed in Hawaii.51 In line with the unionâs international presence, at this early stage the Deutsche Musiker-Zeitung (DMZ) was already being read not just in immediately neighbouring countries but also in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Russia, Italy and the United States.52 While we should be careful not to overstate the significance of this kind of mapping of German musicians in the world, it does at least indicate what an important sphere of activity Eastern Europe and the Tsarist Empire represented for them.53 Both inside and outside the German Empire, then, the founding of the union clearly struck a chord, reflecting a growing need among musicians for a powerful organization capable of defending their professional interests.
Putting the Class Struggle on Hold
After the formation of the Musiciansâ Union in September 1872, increasing alienation set in between it and both the General German Music Association and the tonal artistsâ associations, a development that found expression in both personnel and substance. The musiciansâ congresses within the framework of the ADMV were discontinued after three further meetings and the associated human and financial resources were poured exclusively into the performance of new music and a highly competitive form of talent promotion. From then on, the Musiciansâ Union was systematically ignored.54 The tonal artistsâ associations, for their part, at least tried to keep alive the debate on pedagogical and training issues by amalgamating into a Reich-wide body in 1874, but apparently without much success: most notably, its Harmonie periodical ceased publication within a few years.55 Ultimately, a division of labour between art and labour took hold within organized German musical life over the course of the 1870s. The Music Association saw itself as solely responsible for aesthetic discourse and artistic matters, while practical engagement to advance musiciansâ welfare was the preserve of the Musiciansâ Union. Only after 1900 was this gap â which clashed with the original vision of the ADMVâs architects around Liszt and Brendel â bridged to some extent.56
Partly because of this specific division of labour, Germany â in contrast to other Western countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States â was initially devoid of conflicts and class formation among performing musicians as well as the establishment of competing organizations.57 In fact, the Musiciansâ Union was a cross-class collective movement in which simple dance musicians encountered permanently employed court musicians, civilians came into contact with members of the armed forces and performing musicians met musical entrepreneurs, and there was even room under the union umbrella for those who only wished to play a little as a side-line. For the time being, then, class struggle was not a feature of German musical life. Instead, the defining approach was the cooperative reconciliation of interests.58
From this point of view, the brief meeting between the Berlin-based leaders of the musiciansâ movement and Max Hirsch of the social-liberal trade union movement makes sense, though I could identify no other instances of contact between them. If we view the minersâ strike in Waldenburg of 1869â70 as a crucial lesson that ultimately inspired these trade unions to develop their strategy of the cooperative balancing of interests, it becomes clear how similar the two movements were. Of course, they had other things in common as well. Both embraced self-help, considered themselves non-partisan, were both heterogeneous in composition in their own way and presented themselves as having been formed from âbelowâ. Both had a tightly organized headquarters in Berlin, which was also the quantitative hub in both cases. Both the musiciansâ union and the trade unions ultimately owed their initial success in mobilizing large numbers of people partly to a moderate, consensus-oriented approach that held out the prospect of fairly smooth integration into the existing political and social system, a modus operandi that fell on fertile ground among professional musicians, who often still saw themselves as craftsmen. Last but not least, the Musiciansâ Union and the liberal trade union movement both failed to make much headway with their socio-political agenda until the turn of the century.59 This at least is the impression given by the following chapter, which takes a closer look at musiciansâ lifeworld around 1900.
The only exceptions were large-scale concerts, for which higher admission fees were charged, and charity events.
See Höhne, W., 1831â1931: 100 Jahre Musiker-Organisation in Hamburg. Ein Buch der Erinnerung, Hamburg 1931, 6.
See Lindemann, K., Der Berufsstand der Unterhaltungsmusiker in Hamburg, Hamburg 1938, 27 f.
See âProtokoll 1852â1875â, in STAH VP 52, vol. II.A 1, 17; Höhne, Musiker-Organisation, 7â9.
See Thielecke, R., Die soziale Lage der Berufsmusiker in Deutschland und die Entstehung, Entwicklung und Bedeutung ihrer Organisationen, Frankfurt am Main 1921, 93; by 1798, an association had already been founded in Breslau; see ibid., 92.
The research literature on the Music Association does not examine this state of affairs, while that on the Musiciansâ Union deals with the Association only superficially and as a contrasting foil. See Lucke-Kaminiarz, I., âDer Allgemeine Deutsche Musikverein und seine Tonkünstlerfeste 1859â1886â, in D. Altenburg (ed.), Liszt und die Neudeutsche Schule, Laaber 2006, 221â235; Newhouse, âArtistsâ, 82 f.
See Dömling, W., Franz Liszt und seine Zeit, Laaber 1985, 72â77.
See Sittard, J., Geschichte des Musik- und Concertwesens in Hamburg vom 14. Jahrhundert bis auf die Gegenwart, Hildesheim 1971 (1890), 237 f.; Höhne, Musiker-Organisation, 7.
Wagner, R., Pilgrimage to Beethoven and Other Essays. Translated by William Ashton Ellis. Lincoln 1994 (1849), 348 f.
Liszt, F., âKeine Zwischenakts-Musik â ! 1855â, in Liszt, F., Gesammelte Schriften III, Hildesheim 1978 (1881), 136â150, here 143. Abdelkader (1808â1883) was an Algerian freedom fighter.
Ibid., 145.
See Liszt, F., âZur Situation der Künstler und zu ihrer Stellung in der Gesellschaft (1835)â, in Liszt, F. (ed.), Sämtliche Schriften, vol. 1: Frühe Schriften, edited by R. Kleinertz, Wiesbaden 2000, 2â65, here 11 f.
Liszt, âZwischenakts-Musikâ, 141.
Ibid., 147â151.
Over the course of time, the social setting of the performance did in fact become the main criterion for demarcating art music from popular music. See Dahlhaus, C., âIst die Unterscheidung zwischen E- und U-Musik eine Fiktion?â, in E. Jost (ed.), Musik zwischen E und U, Mainz 1984, 11â24, here 17. For a detailed treatment of the demarcation process, see Müller, S. O., Das Publikum macht die Musik. Musikleben in Berlin, London und Wien im 19. Jahrhundert, Göttingen 2014, 217â259.
âStatuten des Allgemeinen Deutschen Musikvereinsâ, NZfM no. 20, 16 May 1862, 173â178, quotation on 173.
See Deaville, J., âThe Organized Muse? Organization Theory and âMediatedâ Musicâ, Canadian University Music Review no. 18, 1997, 38â51. On the problematic aspects of the New German School from the perspective of musicology, see Altenburg, D., âDie neudeutsche Schule â eine Fiktion der Musikgeschichtsschreibung?â, in Altenburg, D. (ed.), Liszt und die Neudeutsche Schule, Laaber 2006, 9â22.
See Kaminiarz, I., Richard Strauss. Briefe aus dem Archiv des Allgemeinen Deutschen Musikvereins, Weimar 1995, 9â13; Taruskin, Western Music, 416â423. According to Taruskin, the word Zukunftsmusik emerged in the context of the premiere of Wagnerâs Lohengrin in 1850 as a term of derision, Brendel having opined that this music would elude the intellectual grasp of the public of the day. Henceforth, deprecators of Wagnerâs music used it as a pejorative catch-all term for new musical movements, prompting Wagner himself to pen his essay of the same name in 1860. See Koch, K., âZukunftsmusikâ, in Das Wagner-Lexikon, edited by D. Brandenburg et al., Laaber 2012, 869â872.
âÃffentlicher Protestâ, NZfM no. 19, 4 May 1860, 169 f. Brendel had a made-up âPublic Protestâ published, signed among others by âTom, Dick and Harryâ (âKrethi und Plethiâ), which declaims against him and his allies and proposes as a countermeasure a âBrotherhood of Unexciting and Boring Artâ. Further signatories to the protest included J. Geiger for the violinist Joseph Joachim and Hans Neubahn for Johannes Brahms, in allusion to Robert Schumannâs article on Brahms titled âNeue Bahnenâ. This article is reprinted in NZfM no. 18, 28 October 1853, 185 f.; Brahmsâ and Joachimâs critique had appeared in the Berliner Echo and can be found, for example, in Schmidt, C., Johannes Brahms und seine Zeit, Laaber 1983, 20 f.
Taruskin, Western Music, 416. See also Dahlhaus, C., Nineteenth-Century Music. Translated by Bradford J. Robinson. Berkeley, CA 1989, 252 f.
âStatuten des Allgemeinen Deutschen Musikvereinsâ, NZfM no. 20, 16 May 1862, 173â178, quotation on 173; see also Kaminiarz, Strauss, 11 f.
Ibid.
Ibid., 174 f. Non-members could also receive financial support if justified by their accomplishments, whereas the provident fund was for members only.
Ibid., 177.
See Theodor Rode, âAphoristische Bemerkungen in Betreff des âAllgemeinen deutschen Musikvereinsââ, NZfM no. 6, 1 February 1861, 54â56.
See Osterhammel, J., ââWelteroberndes Künstlertumâ. Weltsemantik und Globalisierung im Zeitalter von Richard Wagner und Werner von Siemensâ, in A. Stollberg et al. (eds.), Gefühlskraftwerke für Patrioten? Wagner und das Musiktheater zwischen Nationalismus und Globalisierung, Würzburg 2015, 17â35.
âBericht der geschäftsführenden Section des Allgemeinen Deutschen Musikvereins an dessen Mitgliederâ, Nov. 1864, in GSA 70/2.
See Lucke-Kaminiarz, âDeutsche Musikvereinâ, 229 f.
Rudolph Bensey, âBlüthen und Früchteâ, NZfM no. 23, 30 May 1873, 233â235, quotations on 234.
See Emil Breslauer, âZur gegenwärtigen Lage der Musikerâ, NZfM no. 37, 10 September 1871, 307 f.; Thielecke, Lage der Berufsmusiker, 96 f.; Newhouse, âArtistsâ, 77â82.
On Berlin, see Alsleben, J., Festschrift zur Feier des 50jährigen Bestehens des Berliner Tonkünstlervereins im Jahre 1894, Berlin 1894, 7 f. The early history of the German Tonkünstlervereine or tonal artistsâ associations has yet to be subjected to scholarly scrutiny. A purely documentary work has been produced by Vetter, H.-J., Die Tonkünstler-Verbände 1844â1984, Regensburg 1984, 16â23. Initially, the associations had no clear profile, only becoming a hub for music teachers over the course of time.
See Thielecke, Lage der Berufsmusiker, 98 f. On the situation of women musicians, see chapter 4.
See Directorium des ADMV, âMusikertag zu Leipzigâ, NZfM no. 27, 2 July 1869, 227.
âDie Verhandlungen des ersten deutschen Musikertages zu Leipzigâ, NZfM no. 34, 20 August 1869, 277â280.
See Bernstein, A., Schulze-Delitzsch. Leben und Wirken, Berlin 1879, 52 f.; Moltrecht, C. and H.-J. Moltrecht, âAus dem Leben und Schaffen von Hermann Schulze in Delitzsch und an anderen wichtigen Wirkungsstätten, insbesondere Vereinsgründung und Vereinstätigkeit bis 1862â, in Schulze-Delitzsch, H., Weg â Werk â Wirkung, edited by Förderverein Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch, Wiesbaden 2008, 290â310. Schulze had founded a singersâ association in Delitzsch, in which he himself sang, in which men from different classes came together and whose appeal was felt as far away as Leipzig.
See Fleck, H.-G., Sozialliberalismus und Gewerkschaftsbewegung. Die Hirsch-Dunckerschen Gewerkvereine 1868â1914, Cologne 1994, 54â61.
See âProtokoll der Verhandlungen des zweiten deutschen Musikertages in Magdeburgâ, NZfM no. 42, 13 October 1871, supplement (iâiv).
See Hermann Thadewaldt, âGeschichtliche Darstellung des Entwickelungsganges der Berliner Musiker-Verbindungâ, DMZ no. 1, 3 April 1870, 2 f.; Thielecke, Lage der Berufsmusiker, 98â100; Newhouse, âArtistsâ, 94 f.
See Thielecke, Lage der Berufsmusiker, 100â112 and 132; Newhouse, âArtistsâ, 100â118; on the freedom of trade, see also chapter 3.
âProtokoll der Verhandlungen des zweiten deutschen Musikertages in Magdeburgâ, NZfM no. 42, 13 October 1871, supplement (iâiv).
Ibid.
See ibid.; âDer zweite deutsche Musikertagâ, DMZ no. 39, 24 September 1871, 305 f.; no. 40, 1 October 1871, 313 f.; no. 41, 8 October 1871, 321 f.; Newhouse, âArtistsâ, 151â156.
Quoted in Thielecke, Lage der Berufsmusiker, 134 f.
See ibid., 137 f. For a detailed account of the unionâs establishment, see Newhouse, âArtistsâ, 157â166; on Thadewaldtâs career, see ibid., 76 f.; on the concerts in the Zoological Garden, see Jansen and Lorenzen, Possen, 165â172.
âStatut des Allg. Deutschen Musiker-Verbandesâ, DMZ no. 40, 5 October 1873, 313 f.
See ibid.
Ibid., 314.
See ibid.
See âProtokoll der Dritten Delegierten-Versammlung des Allgemeinen Deutschen Musiker-Verbandesâ, DMZ no. 39, 27 September 1874, supplement 3; by 1906, of the 12,000 union members there were still only 100 women. See Waltz, H., Die Lage der Orchestermusiker in Deutschland mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Musikgeschäfte (âStadtpfeifereienâ), Karlsruhe 1906, 112.
See ibid., 4. Only 39 music teachers had joined at this point.
The member in question was Prussian military musician Heinrich Berger, who was on a diplomatic mission to establish a band. Berger ultimately remained there, becoming the uncontested star of the local music scene. See Hennessey, P. D., Henry Berger: From Prussian Army Musician to Father of Hawaiian Music, Tutzing 2013; Rempe, M., âCultural Brokers in Uniform: The Global Rise of Military Musicians and Their Musicâ, Itinerario no. 41, 2017, 327â352.
See âProtokoll der Dritten Delegierten-Versammlung des Allgemeinen Deutschen Musiker-Verbandesâ, DMZ no. 39, 27 September 1874, supplement 2.
See Tarr, E. H., East Meets West: The Russian Trumpet Tradition from the Time of Peter the Great to the October Revolution, Hillsdale, NY 2003; Lomtev, D., An der Quelle. Deutsche Musiker in Russland. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der russischen Konservatorien, Lage-Hörste 2002; also Amburger, E., âMusikleben in St. Petersburg um 1800â, in W. Kessler et al. (eds.), Kulturbeziehungen in Mittel- und Osteuropa im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Festschrift für Heinz Ischreyt zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 1982, 201â210. On musiciansâ migration, see also chapter 3.
This is evident in the fact that on principle the NZfM carried no reports on the ADEMUV, not even on its establishment, despite the presence of ADMV observers. See Thielecke, Lage der Berufsmusiker, 137.
See Alsleben, Festschrift, 20 f.
See also Brendel, F., Die Organisation des Musikwesens durch den Staat, Leipzig 1866.
On the United Kingdom, see Ehrlich, Profession; on the United States, see Seltzer, G., Music Matters: The Performer and the American Federation of Musicians, Metuchen, NJ 1989.
For more detail, see chapter 5.
For an in-depth treatment, see Fleck, Sozialliberalismus, 41â68. See also chapter 5.