Sounding Out Urban Space: Berlin Street Music Around 1900 DANIEL MORAT FREE UNIVERSITY BERLIN In June 1886, the Berliner Gerichtszeitung reported on a quarrel between the street organ grinder Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig Demant and B. G. Hoffmann, a lawyer as well as the caretaker of the premises Landsbergerstraße 32 and Landwehrstraße 40 a. Demant had played his street organ in the courtyard of the two houses in the working class district of Friedrichshain, much to the pleasure of the carpenters who had their workshop there and listened to the organ tunes during work. Unlike the carpenters, though, the caretaker Hoffmann did not approve of Demant’s organ grinding and asked him to leave. While Demant was shouldering his organ they got into a dispute, a policeman was called, and Demant ended up in court. There he was found guilty of domestic disturbance and had to pay a fine of 20 Marks. The Berliner Gerichtszeitung introduced this story with a general observation: Die Drehorgel, die seit langem in Berlin das Bürgerrecht erworben hat, regt die Gemüter zu sehr entgegengesetzten Empfindungen an. Die einen, darunter vornehmlich die Dienstmädchen und die Straßenjungen, verehren mit schwärmerischer Begeisterung den Leierkastenmann, während wieder andere demselben mit lauten Zornesäußerungen oder auch mit innerlichem Knirschen alles erdenklich Böse an den Hals wünschen. (n. pag.) One can translate these opposite reactions into more general terms: the caretaker’s aversion to the street organ stands for the more general problem of modern city noise; the carpenters’ pleasure stands for the modern urban amusement culture, of which popular music was a very important part. Street music can be located at the intersection of these two urban phenomena. The incident between Demant and Hoffmann, therefore, provides a good starting point for investigating the role of street music in urban life around 1900. As a first step, the place of street music within the anti-noise campaigns of the time will be analyzed. We will see that complaints about street music were not only part of the class distinction between the middle and the working classes, they also contributed to negotiating the boundaries between the private and the public in the city more generally. Secondly, the relationship between street music and the expanding popular music industry will be scrutinized. In this section, I will argue that the Berliner «Gassenhauer,» popular songs sung on the streets, were not only a product of the music industry, but also a product of the active appropriation of popular music by the people who used it to form an urban identity as Berliners. Performing, regulating, and debating street music, therefore, was part of negotiating the soundscape of public (and private) urban space and of appropriating the city. From a methodological point of view, this essay hopes to show that introducing sound studies into history, that lending an ear to the sounds of the past, can help us to understand better larger historical developments such as urbanization and the transformation of big city life. Vice versa, it is a plea for historical contextualization in sound studies. Sounds are not necessarily interesting in themselves, but become relevant in their connection to larger historical, social, political and cultural phenomena. As a result of the rapid growth and the industrialization of Berlin at the end of the nineteenth century, the soundscape of the German metropolis changed in crucial respects. Noise took on a new quality, thanks to the rapid development of the city and the juxtaposition of residential buildings, factories, and craftsmen’s establishments in numerous city quarters (as in the courtyard of Landsbergerstraße 32 and Landwehrstraße 40 a): the growth of transportation, the use of new construction materials that conducted sound extremely well, the proliferation of buildings with multiple tenants (from workers with their tenement houses to the well-off with their flats), the introduction of technology into the bourgeois household, and the spread of the entertainment industry (Saul). This is true for all big cities and industrial conurbations in the western world, but Berlin might be considered an especially good case in point because of the intensity of this development within just a few years. The Greater Berlin Act of 1920 absorbed seven surrounding towns and dozens of communities, expanding the city’s area to thirteen times its former size and increasing its population from 800,000 inhabitants in 1870 to almost 4 million in 1920. It thus became the thirdlargest city in the world, trailing only London and New York. One consequence of this rapid urban growth was that, from the end of the nineteenth century onward, noise was increasingly thematized as a problem of the big city, and citizens initiated campaigns to fight it. The New York philanthropist and publisher’s wife Julia Barnett Rice was a trailblazer of the anti-noise movement. She founded the Society for the Suppression of Unnecessary Noise in New York in 1906, and carried out relatively successful lobbying for anti-noise ordinances and quiet zones, particularly around hospitals and schools (Bijsterveld; Thompson 120 - 30). Rice’s organization became the model for the foundation of similar organizations in other countries and big cities. The German philosopher and cultural critic 332 Daniel Morat Theodor Lessing also referred to the New York model when he brought the Deutscher Antilärmverein into being in 1908 (Baron; Goodyear; Lentz). 1 The foundation of the German Anti-Noise League was directly preceded by the publication of Lessing’s book-length polemical Der Lärm: Eine Kampfschrift gegen die Geräusche unseres Lebens. In it Lessing made his lament first and foremost from the position of the intellectual worker whose concentration and productivity were painfully disturbed by what he called the «preponderance of noise in contemporary life» (2). For Lessing, the tormenting noise came above all from two sources: the affairs and business of other people (neighbours and traders) and the traffic of the big city. Consequently, Lessing’s Anti-Noise League took up arms against both in its publications and campaigns, but it focused primarily on the noise made by other people as an infringement upon one’s right to private solitude. For Lessing and his allies, this problem was attributable to a lack of civility and the boorishness of fellow citizens. Accordingly, the league’s journal, first published in autumn 1908, was called Der Anti-Rüpel («Antirowdy» «Das Recht auf Stille»): Monatsblätter zum Kampf gegen Lärm, Roheit und Unkultur im deutschen Wirtschafts-, Handels- und Verkehrsleben. Harsh critiques levelled at Lessing by his opponents suggest that the elitism and cultural arrogance expressed in the title hindered the success of the League. After early increases, the number of members stagnated at little more than a thousand after 1910. Almost a quarter of them came from Berlin, while the rest were from other big cities in the German Empire. In June 1911, a disillusioned Lessing gave up the League presidency and the organization’s headquarters were moved to Berlin. There it survived until 1914, albeit without an organ like the Antirüpel, whose publication stopped with Lessing’s departure. While the impact of the Anti-Noise League was ultimately limited, it is clear that city officials and residents alike considered noise to be a crucial problem of modern cities at the turn of the century. The role street organs played in that debate provides a good example of the tensions surrounding music making, in public and in private, as part of the unwanted noise generated by one’s fellow citizens. In the pamphlets written by noise opponents, music features as one kind of nuisance among many. Hermann Hasse, for instance, listed in his 1914 report on the international anti-noise movement the following noise categories: «Tierlärm; Kinderlärm; Wirtschaftslärm; Musik- und Vergnügungslärm; Verkehrs- und Baulärm; Gewerblicher und Reklame-Lärm» (3). In his chapter on music and entertainment noise, Hasse called for the prohibition of street organs, among other things (17). In its charter, Lessing’s Anti-Noise League had also called 333 Sounding Out Urban Space for the abatement of street music. In the pages of the Anti-Rüpel, one finds complaints about all sorts of music. To most of the members and supporters of the Anti-Noise League, the piano played by the neighbors was much more annoying than the barrel organ played on the street. 2 This was mainly due to the fact that most supporters and members of the Anti-Noise League lived in bourgeois neighborhoods, where there were more pianos than street organs, the latter being operated primarily out in the open air in working class districts. Regardless of neighborhood, however, noise opponents still considered street music to be a problem. What helped them in their quest for quietude was the fact that «Ruhe» was also a major concern for the authorities. Street music was highly regulated during the German Empire. The 1869 police ordinance for Berlin remained in effect until the end of the Empire, and included a paragraph on the «Erhaltung der Ruhe auf öffentlichen Straßen, Wegen und Plätzen.» It stated that «Musik-Aufführungen auf öffentlicher Straße dürfen nur mit Genehmigung der Polizeibehörde stattfinden» (Sammlung 75). Organ grinders like Friedrich Demant therefore had to obtain a permit from the police in order to ply their trade. This permit did not allow them to play music on private property, though, if the landlord or caretaker objected, as B. G. Hoffmann did. Therefore street music played in private backyards was often a matter of dispute, and the law usually sided with the proprietors, as in the case of the quarrel between Hoffmann and Demant, which ended with Demant having to pay a fine of 20 Marks for domestic disturbance. Taken together, the dispute over house music on the one hand and street music on the other hand - with the border case of backyard or courtyard music in the middle - shows that what was ultimately at stake in the noise debates were the boundaries between the private and the public. In the first instance, anti-noise activists claimed their right to silence and peacefulness within their own private realms, yet they complained that this right was violated by all sorts of noises penetrating their homes from outside. But in the second instance, anti-noise activists also campaigned for less noise in public spaces. In this public space, they not only opposed organ grinders, but more generally the surge of popular music played in beer gardens and public squares by military bands and coffee house orchestras. In his pamphlet Der Lärm Lessing summed it up under the notion of «Musikwut»: Eine grauenhafte Unsitte grassiert in ganz Deutschland: das allgemeine Restaurant- und Kaffeehauskonzert. Wer auf das Wohlwollen seiner Mitmenschen angewiesen ist, musikalische Ohren besitzt und sich nicht ‹aus dem Erwerbsleben zurückziehen› kann, der wird durch Musik, in der alle Welt ihre Nöte und Sorgen 334 Daniel Morat übertäubt, fast zu Tode gemetzgert. Jede Arbeit in Fabrikhöllen und Schwitzschachten wird von rhythmisiertem Lärme begleitet. Aber auch alle Erholungsstätten sind von schlechter Musik überfüllt. Der jeweilige Gassenhauer, heute das ‹Lied von der Holzauktion›, morgen die Matschiche, verfolgt uns bis in die Träume der Nacht. Die allgemeine Musikwut übt auf die Kultur des Ohres die selbe Wirkung, die das illustrierte Journal, das ‹Witzblatt› und die kitschige Reproduktion auf die Kultur des Auges übt. (69) In turn-of-the-century Berlin, one could indeed speak of a «music frenzy.» 3 This music frenzy went back to what Derek Scott has called the «popular music revolution» of the nineteenth century. According to Scott and others, the development of musical life in nineteenth-century Europe and North America was characterized by two important features: the divide between art music and popular music, and the «incorporation of music into a system of capitalist enterprise» (4). Music became a business, and it became a means of social distinction. Popular music was part of the growing entertainment industry that supplied the solvent populace of big cities in particular with ever new amusements and leisure opportunities. This commercialization can also be understood as a kind of democratization of music, as Sabine Giesbrecht-Schutte has emphasized, since larger parts of the populace now gained access to music. As in so many other respects, Berlin was a latecomer in this regard, influenced by developments especially in Paris, Vienna, and London. Of course there had been opportunities to listen to popular music in Berlin throughout the nineteenth century. But the «große Schlagerzeit in Berlin,» as Walter Kiaulehn has termed it (238), came in the 1890s with popular operetta composers like Paul Lincke, Walter Kollo, and Jean Gilbert. Berlin then became the center of German operetta and musical comedy, and also of the music publishing industry. Through sheet music and the emerging recording industry popular songs composed for operettas and musical comedies found their way off the stages and into public space as well as private homes (Becker). Much lamented by anti-noise activists, the «piano pestilence» or growth of middle-class domestic music making was therefore also a part of this commercialization and democratization of music. But the popular songs were not only played in private homes (be it on the piano or the gramophone); they were also performed in beer gardens and promenade concerts, by military bands and coffee house orchestras, and, last but not least, by organ grinders, for the popular songs were also put onto the barrels or music rolls of the street organs. Barrel organs were invented in the eighteenth century and were popular in marketplaces and fairgrounds throughout the nineteenth century. They 335 Sounding Out Urban Space became the typical backyard instrument in Berlin after they began to be manufactured on an industrial scale in the late nineteenth century (Hopf et al.). According to one source, there were as many as 3,000 organ grinders in Berlin in 1893 (Lindenberg 114). Those who did not own an organ themselves could rent one for a fee from the manufacturer or at a bourse, where they also traded the barrels and music rolls. Thus, the popular hit songs were also played in the backyards and streets of the working class districts, where they were eventually sung and whistled by the housemaids and the guttersnipes mentioned in the quotation from the Berliner Gerichtszeitung above. There are many accounts of the speed and breadth of the circulation of these songs. Felix Philippi, for instance, writes in his memories of Berlin at the end of the nineteenth century as follows: Von der schnellen Popularität eines solchen Couplets der damaligen Zeit macht man sich keinen Begriff; es wurde Gemeingut, weil es volkstümlich gedacht und weil es volkstümlich empfunden war. Ein paar Tage nach seiner bejubelten Feuertaufe im Wallnertheater flatterte es durch Berlin, zog es ein in die Beletagen, in die Küchen und Gemüsekeller; es tönte von den Lippen der Schuljungen und der Dienstmädchen, die Schusterjungen pfiffen’s, die Marktweiber gröhlten’s, die Droschkenkutscher und Eckensteher brummten’s, und die Leierkasten wimmerten es. (117) Lukas Richter describes the ubiquity of «Im Grunewald ist Holzauktion,» a song that referred to the deforestation of the Grunewald in the years around 1890 when a villa colony was built in this area west of Berlin (193). Theodor Lessing also mentioned this song in his philippic against the «music frenzy» quoted above. Richter quotes this report from the Tägliche Rundschau from January 1892: Noch vor vierzehn Tagen war dieser Singsang in den weitesten Kreisen unbekannt und heute ertönt er von der Bühne des ‹Adolph-Ernst-Theaters›, aus Küchenfenstern und Schusterkellern, aus Schneiderstuben und Baugerüsten. Und aus den breitesten Volksschichten ist dieser Gassenhauer bereits in Familien und Gesellschaften gelangt. Man spielt ihn bei Bällen, Tanzkränzchen, großen und kleinen Festlichkeiten und singt und tanzt dazu. On the one hand, this circulation of popular songs can be described as a topdown-process. Of course the operetta industry had a business interest in the dissemination of its products. The Antirüpel even reported that people were hired to whistle the latest hit songs on the street as a marketing tool for the operetta industry. 4 On the other hand, it is important to note that there was also an appropriation from below at play in this process. When people sang the popular songs on the street, they did not always sing them the way they were supposed to be sung. In fact, it is constitutive of the so-called 336 Daniel Morat «Gassenhauer» (popular melodies) that they circulated in different versions. The people who picked up the songs changed the lyrics or wrote them completely anew, adapting them to local circumstances. One prominent example is the song that the organ grinder Demant played in the courtyard of Landsbergerstraße 32 and Landwehrstraße 40 a before he was kicked out by the caretaker Hoffmann. According to the Berliner Gerichtszeitung, it was «Mutter, der Mann mit dem Koks ist da.» The melody of this popular «Gassenhauer» was taken from the operetta «Gasparone» by Karl Millöcker from 1884, but the lyrics were made up by the people who sang the song in the streets and addressed the poor living conditions in the Berlin tenement houses: Mutter, der Mann mit dem Koks ist da! Stille doch, Junge, ick weeß et ja! Haste denn Jeld? Ick hab’ keen Jeld. Wer hat denn den Mann mit dem Koks bestellt? (qtd. in Richter 389) These new lyrics were so popular that they found their way back onto the stage. In April 1886 - shortly after the incident between Demant and Hoffmann took place - a new musical burlesque called «Der Mann mit dem Coaks oder Das weinende Berlin» was staged in the Luisenstädtische Theater under the directorship of Adolf Ernst, a successful theater entrepreneur and stage director (Richter 390). 5 The song stayed so popular, even in the twentieth century, that the Austrian pop musician Falco borrowed its title for one of his own songs in 1995. This example shows that street music and the new popular music industry were closely intertwined, and that the «Gassenhauer» were not simply a product of the new cultural industry, but were simultaneously a product of the active appropriation and transformation of popular music by the citizenry. The German cultural anthropologist Kaspar Maase has argued that the rise of popular mass culture since the mid-nineteenth century led to an aestheticization of everyday life in the sense that it made aesthetic experience an element of the quotidian lives of so-called «regular» people (30). By providing them with a medium for self-reflection, the popular arts helped people to cope with their lives and to make sense of them. This seems to be especially true for the «Gassenhauer,» popular songs which thematized the changing living conditions in the big city as well as social and political experiences, mostly in a humorous or satirical way. In this manner, they contributed to the process of mental adaptation to the urban living conditions, which Gottfried Korff has called «inner urbanization.» Hundreds of «Gassenhauer» dealt with Berlin and its changing living conditions during the nineteenth and early twentieth century (Richter; 337 Sounding Out Urban Space Koepp and Cleff; Hoffmann). Often, these songs were written and sung in the Berlin dialect and thereby contributed to the construction of the so-called «Berliner Schnauze,» the typical attitude of the Berliner, conveyed in the colloquial language. These songs thus served as a medium for the construction of a type of urban identity that was specifically Berlin. This was especially important for a city with such a high immigration rate and an increasingly non-native population. The influx of migrants to Berlin in the nineteenth century and especially after the founding of the German Empire in 1871 caused rapid population growth and thus changed the character of the city (Jelavich; Stahrenberg). By providing an image of the typical Berliner, these songs helped migrants to assimilate both socially and psychologically. One of the artists especially prolific in providing ever new Berlin songs was Otto Reutter, star of the Wintergarten variety theatre. Throughout his career, which lasted roughly from 1890 to his death in 1931, he wrote a considerable number of songs thematizing the peculiarities of life in Berlin (Reutter). Among the topics of big city life treated in his songs was also the problem of city noise. As early as 1908, which was of course the year of the formation of the Deutscher Antilärmverein, Reutter made fun of urban noise in one of his songs, entitled «Nicht so laut! »: Auf den Straßen heutzutage das Getös macht nervös. Darum ruft empört der Antilärmverein: «’s darf nicht sein! » Dies Geratter, dies Geknatter, dies Geknall überall, Namentlich die Aut’mobile machen einen Mordskrawall. Wie das tönt - tut tut, wie das dröhnt - (tut tut), fährt so’n Parvenu an mir vorbei, da ruf’ ich voller Wut: «Du fährst auch noch vierter Klasse, hör’ doch auf mit dem Getut! » Nicht so laut, nicht so laut, nicht so laut mußte sein, Dein Benzin macht dich bemerkbar, also brauchste nicht zu schrei’n! Nicht so laut, nicht so laut, ein Trost bleibt dir immer noch: Wenn die Leut’ dich auch nicht hören - riechen tun sie dich ja doch! 6 Reutter’s songs rarely became «Gassenhauer» themselves, as their lyrics were too elaborate to be picked up easily by the crowd. But Reutter, nevertheless, picked up the wit of the «Gassenhauer» to fuel his couplet art. His songs thereby show one way in which popular music reflected on the conditions of urban life. Other forms of popular music did so in more mediated ways. Listening to a street organ played in the courtyard of a working class district could also help the listener adapt to the urban soundscape, which was characterized by the simultaneity of different sounds - even if the lyrics of the 338 Daniel Morat song did not address this urban soundscape as directly as Reutter’s couplet from 1908 did, and even if people like Lessing or the caretaker Hoffmann opposed the simultaneity of sounds as noise and wished to regulate it. As the disputes over and the practices of street music have shown, the sounds of the modern city were one level on which the social coexistence of different people and different classes, the boundaries between the private and the public, and questions of urban identity were negotiated. Lending an ear to the backyard organ grinders can therefore offer us new insights into the fabric of modern city life. Notes 1 Another predecessor of Lessing was Charles Babbage, who already in 1864 campaigned against street performers in London (Assael). Babbage never founded an antinoise league similar to Rice’s or Lessing’s, though. 2 For the third issue of the league’s journal, it conducted an «anti-noise enquiry» among the «intellectual elite» of Germany. The poet Ludwig Fulda wrote from Berlin: «Nach meiner persönlichen Erfahrung ist der Lärm innerhalb des Hauses weit schwerer zu ertragen als der Lärm außerhalb. Hier müßte daher meines Erachtens Ihre Agitation am kräftigsten einsetzen; daß jeder Hausbewohner das unumschränkte Recht besitzt, durch laute Geräusche zu jeder beliebigen Zeit, besonders durch Musik, alle übrigen Bewohner zu stören, ist eine Barbarei, die zu unserer sonst so fortgeschrittenen Kultur in ‹schreiendem› Widerspruch steht» (35). The essayist Oskar A. H. Schmitz wrote, also from Berlin: «Von allen Störungen, die in der Anarchie unseres Verkehrslebens ihre Ursache haben, erscheint mir die private Musik als die bei weitem lästigste und zugleich häufigste.» (36). The economist Walther Borgius, again in Berlin, was the only one to list the street organ among his most hated sources of noise, along with the piano: «Ich und meine Frau und viele meiner Bekannten leiden schmerzhaft unter dem Lärm aller Art, trotzdem wir in einem sogenannten Villenvorort wohnen, und zwar besonders unter: Klavierpaukerei, Leierkasten, Teppichklopfen, nächtlichem Hundeheulen und -bellen, Wagenrasseln auf schlechtem Pflaster» (38). For the context of the «piano pestilence», see Widmaier. 3 For more detail on this subject, see Morat. 4 «Ein neuer Beruf hat sich in Berlin ausgebildet. Die Operettenhochflut der letzten Jahre hat die Fabrikanten der zugkräftigeren Marsch- und Walzerschlager einigermaßen ins Gedränge gebracht. Der Absatz der Komposition hat mit der zunehmenden Zahl solcher Schlager stark nachgelassen. In einer Zeit, wo ein Walzer den anderen ablöst, geraten Melodien sehr bald in Vergessenheit, wenn nicht für ihre Volkstümlichkeit in möglichst nachhaltiger Weise gesorgt wird. Deshalb haben die ingeniösen Operettenkomponisten und ihre Verleger zu dem originellen Mittel gegriffen, Leute anzuwerben, die imstande sind, die neuesten Couplets bei jeder passenden und unpassenden Gelegenheit dem Publikum vorzupfeifen. In erster Linie dienen dazu die Claqueure der Berliner Spezialitäten- und Operettentheater. Darüber hinaus aber bezahlt man heut schon einen großen Teil Lindenbummler und andere Elemente dafür, 339 Sounding Out Urban Space daß sie die betreffende Melodie auf Straßen und Plätzen zum Vortrage bringen. Wenn die Stadtpfeifer von Berlin bei diesem Geschäft auch nicht gerade Seide spinnen können, so ist das Honorar als Beitrag zum Lebensunterhalt doch sehr willkommen» (Peregrin 15). 5 Luisenstadt was the city district south of Jannowitzbrücke and around Oranienplatz and Görlitzer Bahnhof that was divided between Berlin-Mitte and Berlin-Kreuzberg in 1920 with the formation of Greater Berlin. It was characterized by the mixture of uses typical for Berlin: small industry, trade, lower middle class and working class residential buildings. 6 Lyrics according to http: / / www.otto-reutter.de/ index.php/ couplets/ texte/ 197-nichtso-laut.html (accessed September 15, 2014). To listen to a recording of the song go to: http: / / www.otto-reutter.de/ media/ audio/ 22_1901_1908.mp3. Works Cited «Antilärm-Enquete.» Der Anti-Rüpel («Antirowdy» «Das Recht auf Stille»). Monatsblätter zum Kampf gegen Lärm, Roheit und Unkultur im deutschen Wirtschafts-, Handels- und Verkehrsleben 1.3 (1909): 34 - 38. Assael, Brenda. «Music in the Air. Noise, Performers and the Contest over the Streets of the Mid-Nineteenth-Century Metropolis.» The Streets of London. From the Great Fire to the Great Stink. Ed. Tim Hitchcock and Heather Shore. London: Rivers Oram Press, 2003. 183 - 214. Baron, Lawrence. «Noise and Degeneration. Theodor Lessing’s Crusade for Quiet.» Journal of Contemporary History 17.1 (1982): 165 - 78. Becker, Tobias. «Die Anfänge der Schlagerindustrie. Intermedialität und Wirtschaftliche Verflechtung vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg.» Lied und populäre Kultur/ Song and Popular Culture 58 (2013): 11 - 39. Berliner Gerichtszeitung 19 June 1886: n. pag. Bijsterveld, Karin. «The Diabolical Symphony of the Mechanical Age. Technology and Symbolism of Sound in European and North American Noise Abatement Campaigns 1900 - 1940.» Social Studies of Science 31.1 (2001): 37 - 70. Giesbrecht-Schutte, Sabine. «Zum Stand der Unterhaltungsmusik um 1900.» Schund und Schönheit. Populäre Kultur um 1900. Ed. Kaspar Maase and Wolfgang Kaschuba. Köln/ Weimar/ Wien: Böhlau, 2001. 114 - 60. Goodyear, John. «Escaping the Urban Din. A Comparative Study of Theodor Lessing’s Antilärmverein (1908) and Maximilian Negwer’s Ohropax (1908).» Germany in the Loud Twentieth Century. An Introduction. Ed. Florence Feiereisen and Alexandra Merley Hill. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. 19 - 34. Hasse, Hermann. Die Internationale Lärmschutzbewegung. Gautzsch bei Leipzig: Felix Dietrich, 1914. Hoffmann, Niels Frédéric. Berliner Liederbuch. Lieder und Geschichten aus 200 Jahren. Berlin: Elsengold Verlag, 2014. Hopf, Manuela, Klaus Krug, and Helmut Wiemann, eds. Der Leierkasten. Ein Wahrzeichen Berlins. Berlin: Wort- & Bild-Specials, 1991. 340 Daniel Morat Jelavich, Peter. «Modernity, Civic Identity, and Metropolitan Entertaiment. Vaudeville, Cabaret, and Revue in Berlin, 1900 - 1933.» Berlin. Culture and Metropolis. Ed. Charles Werner Haxthausen and Heidrun Suhr. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1990. 95 - 110. Kiaulehn, Walther. Berlin. Schicksal einer Weltstadt. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1997. Koepp, Johannes, and Wilhelm Cleff. Lieber Leierkastenmann. Berliner Lieder. Bad Godesberg: Voggenreiter Verlag, 1959. Korff, Gottfried. «Mentalität und Kommunikation in der Großstadt. Berliner Notizen zur ‹inneren› Urbanisierung.» Großstadt. Aspekte empirischer Kulturforschung. Ed. Hermann Bausinger and Theodor Kohlmann. Berlin: Staatl. Museen Preuß. Kulturbesitz, 1985. 343 - 61. Lessing, Theodor. Der Lärm. Eine Kampfschrift gegen die Geräusche unseres Lebens. Grenzfragen des Nerven- und Seelenlebens. Wiesbaden: Bergmann, 1908. Lentz, Matthias. «‹Ruhe ist die erste Bürgerpflicht›. Lärm, Großstadt und Nervosität im Spiegel von Theodor Lessings ‹Antilärmverein›.» Medizin, Gesellschaft und Geschichte 13 (1994): 81 - 105. Lindenberg, Paul. «Straßenexistenzen.» Berliner Pflaster. Illustrierte Schilderungen aus dem Berliner Leben. Ed. M. Reumund and L. Manzel. Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 1893. 97 - 120. Maase, Kaspar. Grenzenloses Vergnügen. Der Aufstieg der Massenkultur 1850 - 1970. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1997. Morat, Daniel. «Music in the Air - Listening in the Streets. Popular Music and Urban Listening Habits in Berlin around 1900.» Oxford Handbook for the History of Music Listening in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Ed. Christian Thorau and Hansjakob Ziemer. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2017 (forthcoming). Peregrin. «Kultur.» Der Anti-Rüpel («Antirowdy» «Das Recht auf Stille»). Monatsblätter zum Kampf gegen Lärm, Roheit und Unkultur im deutschen Wirtschafts-, Handels- und Verkehrsleben 2.3 (1910): 15 - 16. Philippi, Felix. Alt-Berlin. Erinnerungen aus der Jugendzeit. 10 th ed. Berlin: E. S. Mittler & Sohn, 1918. Reutter, Otto. Habn Sie ’ne Ahnung von Berlin! Heitere Lieder und Couplets. Ed. Helga Bemmann. Berlin: Parthas, 2002. Richter, Lukas. Der Berliner Gassenhauer. Darstellung. Dokumente. Sammlung. Mit einem Register neu herausgegeben vom Deutschen Volksliedarchiv. Münster and New York: Waxmann, 2004. «Sammlung der Polizei-Verordnungen für Berlin.» Berlin: A. W. Hahn’s Erben, 1878. Saul, Klaus. «Wider die ‹Lärmpest›. Lärmkritik und Lärmbekämpfung im Deutschen Kaiserreich.» Macht Stadt krank? Vom Umgang mit Gesundheit und Krankheit. Ed. Dittmar Machule, Olaf Mischer and Arnold Sywottek. Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz, 1996. 151 - 92. Scott, Derek B. Sounds of the Metropolis. The 19th-Century Popular Music Revolution in London, New York, Paris, and Vienna. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Stahrenberg, Carolin. «Donnerwetter! Tadellos! ! Stadtidentitäten Berlins im Klang von Couplets und Schlagern 1907/ 1908.» Musik in Leipzig, Wien und anderen Städten im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Verlage, Konservatorien, Salons, Vereine, 341 Sounding Out Urban Space Konzerte. Ed. Stefan Keym and Katrin Stöck. Leipzig: Gudrun Schröder, 2011. 335 - 47. Storck, Karl. Musik-Politik. Beiträge zur Reform unseres Musiklebens. Stuttgart: Greiner & Pfeiffer, 1911. Thompson, Emily. The Soundscape of Modernity. Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of Listening in America 1900 - 1933. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004. Widmaier, Tobias. «In Pianopolis. Der Kampf gegen die ‹Clavierseuche› im Kaiserreich.» Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 151.6 (1990): 16 - 20. 342 Daniel Morat