Poor Richard Strauss Can't Rest in Peace

[Ralph]

Austrian writer's heirs sue for slice of Strauss royalties

MARIA MARQUART

Associated Press

MUNICH —

A German court on Thursday began considering a lawsuit seeking royalties from the heirs of German composer Richard Strauss for nine works, including opera favourites Der Rosenkavalier and Elektra.

In the suit, five heirs of Austrian writer Hugo von Hofmannsthal claim they have a right to about a quarter of the royalties from the operas, for which Strauss wrote the music and his partner von Hofmannsthal the libretto, or words. The payments would amount to nearly $1-million (U.S.) a year.

Der Rosenkavalier and Elektra remain staples of the repertoire and are still frequently performed by the world's great opera companies.
Related to this article

The von Hofmannsthal heirs cite a series of contracts in which the writer gave Strauss the full rights to his librettos in exchange for a cut of the royalties. Even after the Austrian's death in 1929, Strauss made further contracts with his heirs to secure the rights.

However, none of the contracts clarify how long von Hofmannsthal's heirs are to continue to receive their share of the Strauss royalties. The Strauss heirs contend the royalties should now only be for the operas' music.

The court has asked to see two more of the original contracts between the artists before it can issue a ruling on the case, which is expected some time in 2007.

The other works involved in the case are the operas Die aegyptische Helena, Ariadne auf Naxos, Die Frau ohne Schatten, Arabella, Die Liebe der Danae and The Ruins of Athens, as well as the ballet, The Legend of Joseph.

One of the most important composers of the 19th and 20th centuries, Strauss was considered ahead of his time early in his life, but his association with the Nazis clouded his later years

[Lance]

So, the Strauss family heirs want to keep ALL the royalties for themselves, eh? The libretto doesn't, apparently, mean a thing. Interesting how one-sided something can be. I suppose if the original contract(s) didn't specify any dates or length of time, the von Hafmannsthal family would be entitled to royalties. And to think that neither remaining family had anything to do with the composition of these works, it's all "free" money for them. Yet they don't want to part with any of what's coming in on a daily basis. Could it be that the court would make the would-be payments retroactive? If so, how could the Strauss family pay such a figure, unless they have inordinate amounts of money at their disposal. I wonder what CMG's Legal Department has to say about the various possibilities?

Also, does any know for sure just how closely connected Richard Strauss was to the Nazis or their movement?

[anasazi]

So, the Strauss family heirs want to keep ALL the royalties for themselves, eh? The libretto doesn't, apparently, mean a thing. Interesting how one-sided something can be. I suppose if the original contract(s) didn't specify any dates or length of time, the von Hafmannsthal family would be entitled to royalties. And to think that neither remaining family had anything to do with the composition of these works, it's all "free" money for them. Yet they don't want to part with any of what's coming in on a daily basis. Could it be that the court would make the would-be payments retroactive? If so, how could the Strauss family pay such a figure, unless they have inordinate amounts of money at their disposal. I wonder what CMG's Legal Department has to say about the various possibilities?

Also, does any know for sure just how closely connected Richard Strauss was to the Nazis or their movement?

Lance, please read Michael Kennedy's excellent book about Strauss. That may answer your last question, at least somewhat. I'll save you trouble if you like brief answers. His own daughter-in-law was of Jewish ancestry.

[Lance]

So, the Strauss family heirs want to keep ALL the royalties for themselves, eh? The libretto doesn't, apparently, mean a thing. Interesting how one-sided something can be. I suppose if the original contract(s) didn't specify any dates or length of time, the von Hafmannsthal family would be entitled to royalties. And to think that neither remaining family had anything to do with the composition of these works, it's all "free" money for them. Yet they don't want to part with any of what's coming in on a daily basis. Could it be that the court would make the would-be payments retroactive? If so, how could the Strauss family pay such a figure, unless they have inordinate amounts of money at their disposal. I wonder what CMG's Legal Department has to say about the various possibilities?

Also, does any know for sure just how closely connected Richard Strauss was to the Nazis or their movement?

Lance, please read Michael Kennedy's excellent book about Strauss. That may answer your last question, at least somewhat. I'll save you trouble if you like brief answers. His own daughter-in-law was of Jewish ancestry.

Thank you, Anasazi. I don't have that book presently. Brief answers will be fine just to satisfy my own curiosity. But this is a book I'll be watching for eventually.

[Ralph]

So, the Strauss family heirs want to keep ALL the royalties for themselves, eh? The libretto doesn't, apparently, mean a thing. Interesting how one-sided something can be. I suppose if the original contract(s) didn't specify any dates or length of time, the von Hafmannsthal family would be entitled to royalties. And to think that neither remaining family had anything to do with the composition of these works, it's all "free" money for them. Yet they don't want to part with any of what's coming in on a daily basis. Could it be that the court would make the would-be payments retroactive? If so, how could the Strauss family pay such a figure, unless they have inordinate amounts of money at their disposal. I wonder what CMG's Legal Department has to say about the various possibilities?

Also, does any know for sure just how closely connected Richard Strauss was to the Nazis or their movement?

*****

Strauss was no supporter of the Nazi regime but like other conductors who remained in Germany he was careful about expressing his views.

[jbuck919]

How carefully did you choose the term "poor," Ralph? Strauss was possibly the wealthiest classical composer of all time relative to his times, thanks in part to the fact that he was not averse to air conducting in the display window of Macy's (I may have the NYC department store wrong).

[RebLem]

Part of the reason Strauss was "careful about expressing his views" was that his son had married a Jew. There was an agreement between the regime and Strauss (I don't know how explicit, if at all, it was) that they would avoid enforcing the Nuremburg Laws in relation to the son's marriage if he would keep mute about any criticisms he might have of the regime. This protection did not, however, extend to the rest of his daughter-in-law's family. In fact, Strauss personally went to Theresienstadt to visit several members of her family, but he was refused admission to the city. Most of the members of her family eventually died at Auschwitz.

With regard to the lawsuit in question, I am left with some conflicting feelings. One is that now, 57 years after the composer's death, it ought to be time for his works to enter the public domain. I know that isn't the law, because somehow courts and lawmakers worldwide have become extremely solicitous of the desires of artists' descendents to live off their great relatives' work almost in perpetuity, as the lengths of times in which copyrights are valid has been extended beyond, in my view, all reason.

Strauss's descendents sound like a bunch of pretty greedy folk who do not want to share the wealth with the descendents of one of the people who made much of his work possible, Hugo von Hofmannsthal. On the other hand, he died in 1929, 77 years ago, and keeping his interest in the works alive for his descendents, therefore, seems even less justified than keeping it alive for Strauss's descendents. I wonder if this is part of the argument of Strauss's descendents.

[Micha]

How carefully did you choose the term "poor," Ralph? Strauss was possibly the wealthiest classical composer of all time relative to his times, thanks in part to the fact that he was not averse to air conducting in the display window of Macy's (I may have the NYC department store wrong).

Indeed you do, but not only the store. He conducted some afternoon concerts at "Wanamaker's", but he didn't "airconduct in the display window", he actually appeared there with a full orchestra and performed "Sinfonia Domestica". He was heavily criticized for this appearance by the German press to which he replied: "Making money for one’s wife and
child is no disgrace, not even for an artist!"
But that was only one episode which I don't think is the actual reason he was fairly wealthy. I think that has more to do with the enrmous success many of his works enjoyed.

He profited from his works (which is the way it should be anyway) because, and ironically in this context, Strauss was among the pioneers for the introduction of copyrights.

RE his role in the "3rd Reich", he was actually not that careful in voiving his opinion about the Nazis whom he described as a "bunch of hooligans". He had been appointed as president of the "Reichsmusikkammer", the state music organization which the Nazis had put into place in order to control the musicians in Germany, although he hadn't shown any interest in the position. But that was a pretty natural choice as he was probably the most important living German musician, and he accepted the nomination. He was forced to resign from that position in 1935, when he refused to remove librettist Stefan Zweig's (who was Jewish) name from the announcements for "Die schweigsame Frau" and wrote a letter to Zweig in which he assured him of his support and in which he expressed in no uncertain terms what he thought of the regime.
Unfortunately, that letter was intercepted by the Gestapo...

They had him pretty much under control because of his Jewish daughter-in-law, as has already been mentioned.
His son and daughter-in-law were actually arrested by the Gestapo in Vienna and imprisoned for two days in 1944 while Strauss was away. Understandably, the situation totally stressed him out.

It is also interesting to note that in the same year, his 80th birthday, the party forbade any official celebration of that birthday. What an insult to the greatest living German composer. That illustrates very well that they didn't even have respect for the culture they pretended to "represent". Somehow, that year, there were still tons of Strauss performances everywhere, because people acknowledged his life's work, but there were no official celebrations.

[Ralph]

Don't blame the courts. Copyright is entirely statutory and there's rarely a question as to when it starts and ends for a particular work, either here or in other countries. And that doesn't seem to be the issue in the current Strauss matter anyway.

[Micha]

Copyright is entirely statutory and there's rarely a question as to when it starts and ends for a particular work, either here or in other countries

What does that mean?

[Jack Kelso]

How carefully did you choose the term "poor," Ralph? Strauss was possibly the wealthiest classical composer of all time relative to his times, thanks in part to the fact that he was not averse to air conducting in the display window of Macy's (I may have the NYC department store wrong).

Strauss married wealth. His wife came from the Pschorr Brauerei family of Munich---and as brewers they were quite rich.

Jack

[pizza]

How carefully did you choose the term "poor," Ralph? Strauss was possibly the wealthiest classical composer of all time relative to his times, thanks in part to the fact that he was not averse to air conducting in the display window of Macy's (I may have the NYC department store wrong).

Probably the wealthiest classical composer of all time was Ives. And he made it himself; he didn't marry into it or inherit it.

[johnQpublic]

Many moons ago, I wrote a song cycle using the poetry of a friend. When it got published both of us received a contact for royalties and both were the same percentage.

Don't know what the Strauss case will reveal but that's the way it was at least in the USA 30 years ago.

[alex humphrey]

I don't know much about the case but it sounds like it is worth following! Is there anyway I can get up dates on this case. If libretto was contributed and a deal has been stuck then yes they should get some money. I like to see the money being spent ethically by the family i.e. put the money back into music develop oppportunities for those in deprived backgrounds as opposed to something outragiously banal such botox.

As a crap poet/ try to be composer I think both libretto and sound go hand in hand. The Libretto enhances the sound, and the sound enhances the libretto that's what I love about Strauss' work. I think I would have taken a major interest in the case if it was over Four Last Songs and Alpine Symphony as I find those works to be the most accessible.

It would be great to see him get sued over the Alpine Symphony. I can just picture it on Judge Judy. Your honour I've introduced him to the alps, if it wasn't for me, he wouldn't have experienced this. The essence of his composition wouldn't been there. Judge Judy would obviously ponder over this, obviously trying to gather evidence (I need the mileage), there would be a comercial break. She'd ponder over it further then throw it out of court. It sounds pretty rubish reading over it, but it's so absurd that it would work for me.

Maybe these people should be thankful that is it there grandfather made a contribution two great works particularly Elecktra. Something to be conceptually proud about. It's complex because we need to address the wishes of the Libretist. The question this leaves me is 'Does money have soul?'

[Brendan]

I thought the Mickey Mouse Laws were well known in legal circles: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary ... igman.html

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ ... Extension/

[johnshade]

It is interesting to note that the plot of Strauss's last opera Capriccio revolves around which is greater the words or the music. Although the issue remains unresolved at the end of the opera, the implication is that it is the music. The libretto, by the way is not by Hofmannsthal, but by Clemens Krauss and Richard Strauss himself.

[johnshade]

I believe that Strauss would want his heirs to treat Hofmannsthall's heirs fairly. Strauss was devastated by Hofmannsthall's early death in 1929.

To his widow Strauss wrote, "This genius, this great poet, this sensitive collaborator, this kind friend, this unique talent! No musician ever found such a helper and supporter, and no one will ever replace him either for me or the world of music."

Strauss wrote five operas after Hofmannsthall's death, but he never found a libretto with which he was satisfied.

[Ralph]

I don't know much about the case but it sounds like it is worth following! Is there anyway I can get up dates on this case. If libretto was contributed and a deal has been stuck then yes they should get some money. I like to see the money being spent ethically by the family i.e. put the money back into music develop oppportunities for those in deprived backgrounds as opposed to something outragiously banal such botox.

As a crap poet/ try to be composer I think both libretto and sound go hand in hand. The Libretto enhances the sound, and the sound enhances the libretto that's what I love about Strauss' work. I think I would have taken a major interest in the case if it was over Four Last Songs and Alpine Symphony as I find those works to be the most accessible.

It would be great to see him get sued over the Alpine Symphony. I can just picture it on Judge Judy. Your honour I've introduced him to the alps, if it wasn't for me, he wouldn't have experienced this. The essence of his composition wouldn't been there. Judge Judy would obviously ponder over this, obviously trying to gather evidence (I need the mileage), there would be a comercial break. She'd ponder over it further then throw it out of court. It sounds pretty rubish reading over it, but it's so absurd that it would work for me.

Maybe these people should be thankful that is it there grandfather made a contribution two great works particularly Elecktra. Something to be conceptually proud about. It's complex because we need to address the wishes of the Libretist. The question this leaves me is 'Does money have soul?'

*****

I'll be following it.

[Ralph]

Copyright is entirely statutory and there's rarely a question as to when it starts and ends for a particular work, either here or in other countries

What does that mean?

*****

The legal concept of copyright has been legisatively created and appears in most countries as a statute. There are also international copyright treaties. A copyright law has a procedural element which must be satisfied for the party seeking protection to get it.

Once a copyright is granted effective a given date, it remains in effect for the statutory period, as long as 75 years in some instances. A party claiming infringement generally has little problem showing that he/she/it was entitled to protection at the time of infringement.

Whether there was in fact an infringement may be a very different matter.

[John Haueisen]

SOCIETAL EXIGENCIES
Another perspective on Strauss' membership in the Nazi Party is simply to think of it as wanting to vote in a Primary Election.
You must designate a party affiliation in order to vote choices on their slate.
In Nazi Germany, if you wanted to practice music, you had to be an official member of the party.
Like many "lockstep" movements, they didn't care so much about one's actual beliefs as they did insist that one officially accept the label of party member.
I also doubt that Strauss, or any other musical genius for that matter, cared what political party society demanded they join--their interest was music first; politics a distant ranking.

[pizza]

In Nazi Germany, if you wanted to practice music, you had to be an official member of the party.

There were quite a few German musicians who never joined the party and remained active in their profession. As prominent a musician as Furtwangler never became a party member and continued to conduct throughout the war.

[Ralph]

http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/arts/musReich.htm

NAZI APPROVED MUSIC

Under the Nazi regime, all music produced had to fit within certain standards defined as "good" German music. Suppression of specific artists and their works was common, yet musicians were permitted limited artistic freedom. The Nazis attempted to create a balance between censorship and creativity in music to appease the German people.

This blend of art and politics led to a three-prong policy regarding musicians and artists:

1. Loyal Nazi members who were talented musicians were guaranteed a job.
2. Loyal Nazi members who were not talented musicians were not guaranteed a job.
3. Any non-Jewish person who demonstrated a "genius" for music and was a member of the Reichsmusikkammer (Reich Music Chamber) was permitted employment. This exception in policy permitted musicians like conductor Wilhelm Furtwangler and composer Richard Strauss to continue working.

According to Hitler and Goebbels (Hitler's second in command), the three master composers that represented good German music were Ludwig van Beethoven, Richard Wagner, and Anton Bruckner. All three composers lived prior to the 20th century.

[John Haueisen]

Kudos to Ralph for his usual, straight-to-the-point explanation of the issue, AND for providing links to further reading on the topic.

[Ralph]

For anyone seriously interested in classical music in Germany from 1933-1945 the Kater trilogy is absolute must reading. Nothing better. Period.

[Jack Kelso]

According to Hitler and Goebbels (Hitler's second in command), the three master composers that represented good German music were Ludwig van Beethoven, Richard Wagner, and Anton Bruckner. All three composers lived prior to the 20th century.

Schumann and Brahms were considered great (arian) composers, but much of their output was "too intellectual". Liszt wrote individual works which were approved by the Nazis.

Jack