Page 232 - Weiss, Jernej, ur./ed. 2023. Glasbena društva v dolgem 19. stoletju: med ljubiteljsko in profesionalno kulturo ▪︎ Music societies in the long 19th century: Between amateur and professional culture. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 6
P. 232
glasbena društva v dolgem 19. stoletju: med ljubiteljsko in profesionalno kulturo
thing important, to the period between 1867 and 1908. Not being familiar
with all the details of the orchestra’s founding years, I can only say, that in
principle, if at some point, the orchestra, which the general public clearly
associated with one form of association or the other, to which the famous
testament of Rudolf Putz, who in 1908 left his estate “zugunsten der Ge
sellschaft der Wiener Philharmoniker,” testifies,46 registered their Statutes
with the authorities, before 1867, the criteria for being an association in the
eye of the law, could have been met.
To my mind, during the period mentioned, the orchestra was not
conformed to the Associations’ Act according to three criteria. In addi-
tion to pecuniary goals, expressly encapsulated by the self-designation
Konzert-Unternehmung and their Statutes not being registered by the au-
thorities, which consequently held the pursuit of their concert activities
away from the state’s supervisory eye, there was the criteria of permanen-
cy of membership which was not entirely met. I will now treat this issue to-
gether with a possible answer to Hellsberg’s claim that the orchestra in le-
gal sense did not exist.
Before the adoption of the Statutes in 1908 in the sense of the 1867 Act,
every year after a spring summon (Zirkular zufolge §6 des Geschäftsord
nung),47 each individual, having of course once in the past already passed
the rigorous audition, was asked to sign his name into what they colloquial-
ly termed a Namenliste48 (picture 3). In my view, that was a form of signing a
contract, something that also the official entry in the Orchestra’s Archives,
as Verpflichtungsdokument, nicely encapsulated. By that, each individual
accepted the obligation to perform with the orchestra and abide by the de-
cisions, passed in their general assembly, only for the year that followed.
The lack of required permanency of membership can also be discerned
from the wording of the Statutes from 1908, with which the orchestra not
only received its official name of Wiener Philharmoniker for the first time,
but also its permanent membership. Not everyone ever signed onto previ-
46 On Putz, cf. infra.
47 I would like to point out a telling difference in the naming of their internal rules be-
fore 1908 – Geschäftsordnung and not Statuten. A similar approach can be also dis-
cerned in Ljubljana later with Orkestralno društvo, which contrary to an association
in the sense of 1867 Act, adopted its rules under the Slovenian equivalent poslovna
pravila (different to the Statut of Glasbena matica, or that of the (first) Slovene Phil-
harmonic, for example). I would like to suggest that this was due to the awareness of
their sui generis status (at least among the jurists). Cf. infra f. 66.
48 On the importance and the historical context of Namenlisten, Hellsberg, Demokratie,
368.
230
thing important, to the period between 1867 and 1908. Not being familiar
with all the details of the orchestra’s founding years, I can only say, that in
principle, if at some point, the orchestra, which the general public clearly
associated with one form of association or the other, to which the famous
testament of Rudolf Putz, who in 1908 left his estate “zugunsten der Ge
sellschaft der Wiener Philharmoniker,” testifies,46 registered their Statutes
with the authorities, before 1867, the criteria for being an association in the
eye of the law, could have been met.
To my mind, during the period mentioned, the orchestra was not
conformed to the Associations’ Act according to three criteria. In addi-
tion to pecuniary goals, expressly encapsulated by the self-designation
Konzert-Unternehmung and their Statutes not being registered by the au-
thorities, which consequently held the pursuit of their concert activities
away from the state’s supervisory eye, there was the criteria of permanen-
cy of membership which was not entirely met. I will now treat this issue to-
gether with a possible answer to Hellsberg’s claim that the orchestra in le-
gal sense did not exist.
Before the adoption of the Statutes in 1908 in the sense of the 1867 Act,
every year after a spring summon (Zirkular zufolge §6 des Geschäftsord
nung),47 each individual, having of course once in the past already passed
the rigorous audition, was asked to sign his name into what they colloquial-
ly termed a Namenliste48 (picture 3). In my view, that was a form of signing a
contract, something that also the official entry in the Orchestra’s Archives,
as Verpflichtungsdokument, nicely encapsulated. By that, each individual
accepted the obligation to perform with the orchestra and abide by the de-
cisions, passed in their general assembly, only for the year that followed.
The lack of required permanency of membership can also be discerned
from the wording of the Statutes from 1908, with which the orchestra not
only received its official name of Wiener Philharmoniker for the first time,
but also its permanent membership. Not everyone ever signed onto previ-
46 On Putz, cf. infra.
47 I would like to point out a telling difference in the naming of their internal rules be-
fore 1908 – Geschäftsordnung and not Statuten. A similar approach can be also dis-
cerned in Ljubljana later with Orkestralno društvo, which contrary to an association
in the sense of 1867 Act, adopted its rules under the Slovenian equivalent poslovna
pravila (different to the Statut of Glasbena matica, or that of the (first) Slovene Phil-
harmonic, for example). I would like to suggest that this was due to the awareness of
their sui generis status (at least among the jurists). Cf. infra f. 66.
48 On the importance and the historical context of Namenlisten, Hellsberg, Demokratie,
368.
230
