Susanne Ziegler
Susanne Ziegler Susanne Ziegler
Ziegfried E. Nadel and his Contributionto Georgian Polyphony109In addition, the customs authorities were asked not to cause any problems, since thematerial was intended to be used for scientific purposes only (letter in German andFrench). In the list of phonographs on loan there is also an entry about a phonograph“Excelsior”, given to Dr. Nadel on April 18, 1932. The machine - belonging to thePhonogramm-Archiv - was not returned, but was later given by Nadel to SuperintendentMurray in Nigeria.It still remains unclear as to whether Nadel really had the intention of travelling tothe Caucasus and make music recordings. In other sources (Salat, 1983:26) it ismentioned that at about the same time he asked for a Rockefeller fellowship in orderto study at the London School of Economics. It may well be that Nadel followeddifferent plans at that time; the Caucasian plan was not realsed, but the phonographwas already in Nadel’s hands, and he obviously took it to Nigeria at the end of 1933.The correspondence preserved in the Phonogramm-Archiv does not include anycorrespondence between Nadel and Hornbostel, but several documents reveal a livelycorrespondence between Nadel and Schneider in preparing Nadel’s expedition to Nigeria.In May 1933 (letter of May 17, 1933) Nadel – at that time already in London -asked for recorders for his phonograph. From the letter it becomes clear that he wasalso in contact with Hornbostel, Kolinski and Sachs and well informed about thesituation in Berlin, since he addresses Schneider as the only “surviving” person in thePhonogramm-Archiv. Nadel meanwhile bought his own phonograph which – accordingto him – seemed better apt for language recordings, and the phonographbelonging to the Berlin Phonogramm-Archiv was given to another scholar in Nigeria(letter Lisbeth Nadel of December 1933). From the correspondence it becomes alsoevident that Nadel had cylinder copies from earlier collections of African music in hispossession, for example, cylinders recorded by Ankermann, Waldow and Struck 5 . InMarch 1935 Nadel reported that he made several recordings on wax cylinders andasked for copies, which he urgently needed for his lectures. Wax cylinder recordingsno. 1 – 57, together with documentation, were sent to Berlin in June 1935, but Nadelwas not satisfied with the quality of the copies and complained. In December 1935Nadel and his wife set off for the second periodfield research in Nigeria; the waxcylinders resulting from the second trip were – deliberately or not – given to theVienna Phonogrammarchiv. When Schneider heard about this arrangement in 1938,he complained in Vienna, but secretly exchanged copies with his colleague Leo Hajek.Nadel, meanwhile working as British government anthropologist in Sudan, had beeninformed by Hajek and wrote an indignant letter to Schneider (May 7, 1938) trying toclarify and asking him for an official excuse.‘There is only one more letter from Nadel, dated August 24, 1955, from Canberraasking Kurt Reinhard, director of the Phonogramm-Archiv since 1952, for copies ofhis wax cylinders from Nigeria. Reinhard reported about the present desolate state ofthe Phonogramm-Archiv and submitted an offer for transferring Nadel’s cylinders,but due to Nadel’s untimely death the arrangement was not continued.
110 Susanne ZieglerNadel and Georgian MusicThere is no information about the reasons for Nadel’s study of Georgian songs. Inthe preface to his publication Nadel mentions that the collection was part of therecordings made in German prison camps during World War 1 under the direction ofC. Stumpf and G. Schünemann. Nadel’s study is exclusively based on the records,and he gives also the records’ inventory numbers (P.K.), but he does not mention thewax cylinders that were recorded at the same time and housed in the Phonogramm-Archiv 6 . The record collection, however, was not part of the Phonogramm-Archiv,but of the Lautarchiv, at that time called Lautabteilung in the Prussian State Library.The director of the Lautabteilung from 1920 up to 1931 was Wilhelm Doegen, amanager who was more interested in language than in music. In addition, Doegen didnot maintain any contact with the Phonogramm-Archiv, but instead, he ignored it. Onthe other hand, we know that Nadel was in contact with Hornbostel and Sachs, butthey probably had no access to the holdings of the Lautarchiv and are not mentionedin Nadel’s introduction. So it remains an open question as to who the person waswho introduced Nadel to the collections of the Lautarchiv and how he gained accessto the Georgian records.Historical documents preserved today in the archive of Humboldt-university aremerely concerned with the search for a specialist in the Georgian language ratherthan in music. When Adolf Dirr, who was involved in the recordings of prisoners ofwar both in Austria and in Germany, died in early 1930s, Doegen asked Prof. Meckelein(in a letter of February 23, 1932) to prepare the Georgian songs for print. We maysuppose that by this time the transcriptions were already completed. Meckelein, however,responded negatively and recommended David Ghambashidse, a Georgian nativespeaker. Nadel came into contact with Ghambashidse, and he is the only personto whom Nadel expresses his thanks (Nadel, 1933:5). At about the same time (June2-3, 1933) David Ghambashidse was recorded at the Lautarchiv with examples ofthe spoken Georgian language 7 .The document about the loan of a phonograph for field recordings in Georgiadates from August 1 st , 1932, when at least the music transcriptions had been finished.It could well be that Nadel – probably together with Ghambashisde – was planning afield trip to Georgia. However, instead of going to Georgia he went to England, andthe publication of his manuscript proceeded in Germany without the author.The manuscript on Georgian songs – surprisingly without any translations of theGeorgian song texts – was sent to different publishers in summer 1933, in order toget the lowest offer on costs. Meanwhile Doegen was no longer director of theLautabteilung, but replaced by Diedrich Westermann 8 . The manuscript, including 35pages musical notes, was finally printed by C. Schulze & Co., Gräfenhainichen (Germany)and published in commission by Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, Leipzig. Accordingto the correspondence in the Lautarchiv, the musical notes were printed separately bythe music publisher Balan, and later bound together with the text. The publicationwas printed in an edition of 500 copies.
- Page 1 and 2: 106SUSANNEOZIEGLERSIEGFRIED F. NADE
- Page 6 and 7: Ziegfried E. Nadel and his Contribu
- Page 8 and 9: Ziegfried E. Nadel and his Contribu
- Page 10: Ziegfried E. Nadel and his Contribu
110 <strong>Susanne</strong> <strong>Ziegler</strong>Nadel and Georgian MusicThere is no information about the reasons for Nadel’s study of Georgian songs. Inthe preface to his publication Nadel mentions that the collection was part of therecordings made in German prison camps during World War 1 under the direction ofC. Stumpf and G. Schünemann. Nadel’s study is exclusively based on the records,and he gives also the records’ inventory numbers (P.K.), but he does not mention thewax cylinders that were recorded at the same time and housed in the Phonogramm-Archiv 6 . The record collection, however, was not part of the Phonogramm-Archiv,but of the Lautarchiv, at that time called Lautabteilung in the Prussian State Library.The director of the Lautabteilung from 1920 up to 1931 was Wilhelm Doegen, amanager who was more interested in language than in music. In addition, Doegen didnot maintain any contact with the Phonogramm-Archiv, but instead, he ignored it. Onthe other hand, we know that Nadel was in contact with Hornbostel and Sachs, butthey probably had no access to the holdings of the Lautarchiv and are not mentionedin Nadel’s introduction. So it remains an open question as to who the person waswho introduced Nadel to the collections of the Lautarchiv and how he gained accessto the Georgian records.Historical documents preserved today in the archive of Humboldt-university aremerely concerned with the search for a specialist in the Georgian language ratherthan in music. When Adolf Dirr, who was involved in the recordings of prisoners ofwar both in Austria and in Germany, died in early 1930s, Doegen asked Prof. Meckelein(in a letter of February 23, 1932) to prepare the Georgian songs for print. We maysuppose that by this time the transcriptions were already completed. Meckelein, however,responded negatively and recommended David Ghambashidse, a Georgian nativespeaker. Nadel came into contact with Ghambashidse, and he is the only personto whom Nadel expresses his thanks (Nadel, 1933:5). At about the same time (June2-3, 1933) David Ghambashidse was recorded at the Lautarchiv with examples ofthe spoken Georgian language 7 .The document about the loan of a phonograph for field recordings in Georgiadates from August 1 st , 1932, when at least the music transcriptions had been finished.It could well be that Nadel – probably together with Ghambashisde – was planning afield trip to Georgia. However, instead of going to Georgia he went to England, andthe publication of his manuscript proceeded in Germany without the author.The manuscript on Georgian songs – surprisingly without any translations of theGeorgian song texts – was sent to different publishers in summer 1933, in order toget the lowest offer on costs. Meanwhile Doegen was no longer director of theLautabteilung, but replaced by Diedrich Westermann 8 . The manuscript, including 35pages musical notes, was finally printed by C. Schulze & Co., Gräfenhainichen (Germany)and published in commission by Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, Leipzig. Accordingto the correspondence in the Lautarchiv, the musical notes were printed separately bythe music publisher Balan, and later bound together with the text. The publicationwas printed in an edition of 500 copies.
Change language