Dr. Stockmeier is unhappy about Piersig’s annotations but they are footnotes which do not clutter the text and the manuscript markings are minimal. The Möseler text is even plainer (my preference, I admit) but the Hinrichsen is remarkably discreet for the 1930s, a model of restraint compared with such editions as Dupré’s in this era, where the plethora of fingerings scarcely allows the notes to be seen.

I draw readers’ attention to the fugue: P30/2/4—5=S309—10 and three further, similar passages to S327—28, where Piersig goes to the trouble of providing dotted ties. These seem entirely appropriate but Piersig feels caution is needed in adding them and therefore shows players they are his edited addition, not original markings. (Dr. Stockmeier agrees and adds the same ties too, but they are printed there as unbroken lines, implying the composer’s direction.) In this small example, Piersig makes an attempt to convey Karg-Elert’s wishes accurately; surely that is incompatible with a man who wilfully mangles the same composition elsewhere. Until we have the original manuscript, we shall never truly know, but I doubt that Piersig should be so severely derided as at present.

P.S., July 2003 — long after the above was completed (in November 2002, during a visit to London), I was fortunate to be given access to a large folder of papers in the possession of the Karg-Elert Archive. Amongst these is an article, the existence of which was unknown to me until then, from The Musical Times of February 1939, pages 127 & 128, by “A. F.” (Archibald Farmer, 1899—1963). I believe it greatly strengthens Piersig’s defence in the Opus 150 dispute. Particular attention is drawn to paragraph 5 where Farmer states: “. . . I thought it unworthy of Karg-Elert — cheap and theatrical, full of mannerisms, effects, harps, bells and what not. With the composer’s consent, it was extensively revised by
Mr. Piersig, and the true work has now emerged.”
This work was written in 1931 expressly for Karg-Elert’s North American tour, which started in January 1932. His letters from America betray a most unfortunate feeling of intellectual and artistic superiority, which within a few months caused his American hosts enormous offence, as one might expect, once translated excerpts of the letters reached them; it is therefore reasonable to suppose he may well have written into his opus 150 some theatrical effects to amuse audiences he expected to be naïve. It was presumably Piersig who told Farmer that the drastic cuts reducing the original playing time of 40—45 minutes by almost one half, that he (Piersig) made, were done “with the composer’s consent”, an important matter always denied by Katharina Schwaab (née Karg-Elert). Yet if Piersig had lied to Farmer and done such a radical revision without consent, why then allow the original manuscript to be shown in London nearly six years after the composer’s death? Surely his purpose would have been better served by destroying the original manuscript, had he made these changes without authority. In that way, no-one could review the original to see whether Piersig’s version was indeed an improvement or sheer vandalism. This is still the position we are in nowadays, as the manuscript Farmer was privileged to see has been lost for decades and seems unlikely ever to reappear. Farmer must act as an educated observer on our behalf; he was highly experienced in Karg-Elert’s music if not himself a composer, and an important figure in the English Karg-Elert movement over several decades. To deny his remarks here questions his authority in the Archive’s antecedents.

Dr. Stockmeier has greatly altered Piersig’s version according to his unquestioned knowledge of Karg-Elert’s style, but without access to the original. Even the sequence of long passages in the Passacaglia has been altered, purely according to his taste, and some excellent material discarded in the process. This is no re-creation of the original but a corruption of Piersig’s edition; it is certainly different but no more authentic. The fugue has been modified to make it more suitable for organs of classical voicing, using octave transpositions (but in any case this was suggested by Piersig in his preface to the 1930s edition); some other changes in the fugue are made according to
Dr. Stockmeier’s whims. Players making a choice between editions should do so in the light of these facts.

Although much of Farmer’s article is irrelevant to the opus 150 dispute, in case there is concern that material is being quoted out of context, the entire piece is reproduced, as follows. Readers may then decide for themselves how to interpret his remarks.