Each of the works we presented in the third concert had a different background and posed different challenges: Hans Pfitzner believed that Schönberg’s modernism was a foreign influence in German culture. His anti-modernist writings from 1917 and onward led to tensions between him and Schönberg’s circle. Pfitzner and Schönberg developed different ideas in reaction to the cultural phenomena of their time. The musical culture around the turn of the century was characterised by a false nostalgia and social hypocrisy, especially in Vienna. In his thesis on the performance practice of Schönberg’s circle, Alfred Cramer wrote: “Music became a vehicle for assimilation, having arisen not spontaneously but out of a desire for social prestige. […] Because of this ulterior motive, the music of the turn of the century was overloaded with extra-artistic connotations, mainly connected with its function as a stand-in for the social high life. […] The famous virtuoso, the successful composer, or the player in the Vienna Philharmonic was a distinguished citizen; but the average musician or the slovenly one was almost an outcast. Concerned above all to rank musicians, people scrutinized every technical detail of execution and paid little attention to aesthetic features.” Schönberg and his circle tried to change the audience’s attitude and the common way of performing that they found overly dramatic, emotional and self-publicising by organising the Society concerts. Pfitzner was also concerned