Sergey Prokofiev’s Complete Solo Cello Repertory: The Compositional History and Performance Guide
A document submitted to
The Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS
in Violoncello Performance Studies Division of the College-Conservatory of Music
2019
by
Li-Han Eliza Tseng
B.M., National Taichung University of Education, 2012 M.M., University of North Texas, 2014
Abstract
This document is a comprehensive study of the five complete solo cello repertory by
Sergey Prokofiev, featuring cello with piano or orchestra— the Ballade, Cello Sonata, Cello
Concerto, Adagio from Cinderella, and Sinfonia Concertante. The study combines compositional background, musical analysis, and performance practice. In the compositional background section, I relate Prokofiev’s life events, his diary, scholarly research, and the political influences to his cello compositions. In the musical analysis section, I categorize the themes and show the motives of each of Prokofiev’s solo cello works in charts, and I compare these to Prokofiev’s own cello compositions. The musical examples, excerpts, and tables illustrate each work’s form. The performance practice section includes an examination and discussion of technical issues as well as the highlights of each piece.
In the document, I chronicle Prokofiev’s cello solo repertory. Chapter 1 tells the stories about Prokofiev’s cello compositions—solo and ensemble, how the music aligns with his life stages, and the influence of Mstislav Rostropovich, Prokofiev’s cello friend and partner.
Chapters 2 and 3 provide recent scholarly discoveries of Prokofiev’s solo cello works, particularly the Ballade and the Adagio from Cinderella. Chapter 3 also includes my research on why Prokofiev preferred composing much of his music in C Major. Chapter 4 discusses the
Sonata and its motivic connections with his Ballade. Chapter 5 discusses the two concertos, the
Cello Concerto and the Sinfonia Concertante, through Prokofiev’s compositional background and personality.
I expect my research will contribute an inclusive guide that can deepen both performers’ and readers’ understanding of Prokofiev’s cello repertory, and I hope to contribute to the recognition of the value of Prokofiev’s cello music.
i
[copyright notice]
ii
Preface
This document was motivated by my study of Prokofiev’s Sonata. I found a couple of issues when I was learning the piece. Therefore, I decided to work on this project to address the lack of resources devoted to Prokofiev’s cello repertory. Books on Prokofiev’s life only list his cello works or briefly describe certain works. Neither stand-alone articles nor more substantial research has been published concerning the analysis and performance practice of all of his solo cello works. In addition, resources on Prokofiev are still not completed, especially the resources relating to the cello repertory; for example, there are missing volumes or misarranged volumes of
Prokofiev’s collected works in the CCM library. Likewise, the music encyclopedia by Grove (or
Oxford music online) does not provide a detail listing of musical resources on the composer.
Since Prokofiev wrote tuneful melodies with witty musical ideas, I still decided to continue the project.
I also decided to write a document that could act as a tool for people who like me, cannot read a two-page article or a book, and yet like the music and want to understand it more deeply.
It has been a great challenge for me to complete this project because I needed to read it through several times. After studying with Mr. Hanani, I have realized that stories can add the life to the music. Therefore, I decided to work on this document and hope it can be practical for people who like Prokofiev, especially his works for cello.
iii
Acknowledgements
Thanks to all my committee members Dr. Bunte, Prof. Finkelshteyn, Dr. Joe, and my advisor Prof. Hanani. They have been so patient with me and so encouraging and supportive. A special thanks goes to Dr. Segall, though he is not on my committee board, as he helped me to understand Prokofiev’s compositional theory, to figure out the contradiction of the dates and resources, and to resolve the issues that I struggled with, not only music theory, but also with some Russian documents. His instruction is clear and inspiring. Also, thanks to College-
Conservatory of Music librarians, Mr. Sandor and Dr. Doctor. Their guidance and abundant experience always found a solution for research issues, especially Prof. Doctor’s instruction, which added to my knowledge of research methods. A special thanks to Dr. Shaoff, a very detail- oriented and knowledgeable musicologist as well as a selfless friend. He commented on my writing, proposals, and this document. Instead of merely reading or correcting it, he shared with me his own experiences, and this also encouraged me deeply. A very special thanks to Prof.
Finkelshteyn for his contribution to my project, not only on the Russian resources, but also on the performance instruction. Mr. Finkelshteyn patiently helped me to understand Russian topics.
All my committee members spent a substantial amount of time assisting with this document.
Last but not least, thanks to my family and friends, who have given me the strength to continue my project. They have supported my life in various ways so that I can focus on completing the document. To be honest, it has been a long journey. I am so thrilled when discovering the connection between each cello work and the stories in Prokofiev’s life. It’s also exciting to write and study about his solo cello repertory in different aspects. Hence, I sincerely appreciate the people who were involved in my document. Without their help, I would not have been able to complete it.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract / I Preface / III Acknowledgements / IV List of Tables / VII List of Examples / VIII
Chapter One: The History correlated to Prokofiev’s Cello Compositions
Prokofiev’s Solo Cello Repertory / 1 The Cello Compositions Align with Prokofiev’s Life / 2 Mstislav Rostropovich’s Influence on Prokofiev’s Cello Composition / 12
Chapter Two: Ballade for cello and piano, Op. 15
Historical Background of the Ballade / 17 Musical Analysis and Comparison with the Sonata / 21 Performance Guide of the Ballade / 32
Chapter Three: Adagio from Cinderella, Op. 97bis
Historical Background of the Adagio / 34 Prokofiev’s Use of C Major / 38 Musical Analysis / 41 Comparison with the Cello Section Solo in the Ballet / 42 Performance Guide—Publications and the Music Score / 44 Cello Music with the Suggested Fingerings / 48
v
Chapter Four: Sonata for cello and piano in C major, Op. 119
Historical Background of the Sonata / 49 Musical Analysis and Performance Guide / 54 The 1st movement / 55 The 2nd movement / 60 The 3rd movement / 64
Chapter Five: Cello Concerto, Op. 58 and Sinfonia Concertante, Op. 125
Historical Background and the Relationship of the Cello Concerto with the Sinfonia Concertante / 69 Musical Analysis and Performance Guide / 77 Rostropovich’s advises on the Sinfonia Concertante / 94 Conclusion: From the Composer’s Personality to His Music / 96
Bibliography / 98
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of the Ballade / 21
Table 2: The motives shared between the Ballade and the Sonata / 22–23
Table 3: The Adagio for cello and piano, Op. 97bis / 41–42
Table 4: The Adagio and the Act II, Scene 36 of Cinderella, Op. 87 / 43–44
Table 5: Rhythmic Motives, Prokofiev, the Sonata, Movt. I / 54
Table 6: Prokofiev, the Sonata, Movt. I, Section 1, mm. 1–98 / 56
Table 7: Prokofiev, the Sonata, Movt. I, Section 2, mm.99–135 and
Section 3, mm. 135–end / 58
Table 8: Rhythmic Motives, Prokofiev, Sonata, Movt. II / 60
Table 9: Section A, Prokofiev, Sonata, Movt. II, mm. 1–49 / 61
Table 10: Section B, Prokofiev, Sonata, Movt. II, mm. 49–93 / 62
Table 11: Section A’, Prokofiev, Sonata, Movt. II, m. 94–end / 63
Table 12: Section A, Prokofiev, Sonata, Movt. III, mm. 1–101 / 65
Table 13: Section B, Prokofiev, Sonata, Movt. III, mm.102–37 / 66
Table 14: Section A’–Section C, Prokofiev, the Sonata, Movt. III,
mm. 137–99 to m. 199–end / 68
Table 15: Comparison of the Cello Concerto and the Sinfonia Concertante / 78–80
vii
List of Music Examples
Example 1: Motive 1 shared by Ballade and Sonata: B1 & S1 / 23–24
Example 2: Motive 2 shared by Ballade and Sonata: B2 & S2 / 25–26
Example 3: Motive 3 shared by Ballade and Sonata: B3 & S3 / 26–27
Example 4: Motive 4 shared by Ballade and Sonata: B4 & S4 / 28–29
Example 5: Motive 5 shared by Ballade and Sonata: B5 & S5 / 30–31
Example 6: Ballade, mm. 48–50 / 32
Example 7: Ballade, mm. 82–83 / 32
Example 8: Ballade, mm. 104–7 / 33
Example 9: Ballade, mm. 58–59 / 33
Example A-1—A-2: Adagio, mm. 14–15 / 45
Example A-3—A-4: Adagio, mm. 30–31 / 45
Example A-5—A-6: Adagio, m. 54 / 46
Example 10: Adagio, mm. 52–53 / 46
Example 11: Adagio, mm. 39–43 / 47
Example 12: Adagio, m. 21 & 51 / 47
Example 13: Adagio, mm. 1–6 / 48
Example 14: Adagio, mm. 20–21 / 48
Example 15: Adagio, mm. 29–30 / 48
Example 16: Adagio, mm. 40–41 / 48
Example 17: Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Second Movement, mm. 1–8 / 81
Example 18: Motives shared by the two concertos / 82
Example 19: Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. I, the sixth bar of 18–19 / 83
viii
Example 20: Theme 1 for solo cello from the Movt. I, shared by the two concertos / 83
Example 21: Excerpt from Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Movt. I, Theme 2, mm. 8–16 / 84
Example 22: Excerpt from Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. I, Theme 2, 2– 3 / 84
Example 23a: The Adagio in Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Adagio, Movt. I / 84
Example 23b: The Adagio in Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante in the end of Movt. I / 85
Example 24: The melodic theme from the Movt. II, shared by the two concertos / 86
Example 25: Melodic Theme (TEMA) in both concertos / 87
Example 26: The TEMA (the theme in the Movt. III) shared by the two concertos / 88
Example 27: The cadenza in both concertos / 89
Example 28: The sixteenth-note motif shared by the two concertos’ coda section / 90
Example 29a: The ending of Prokofiev’s Cello Concerto, Movt. III / 91
Example 29b: The ending of Prokofiev’s Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. III / 92
Example 30: Rostropovich’s composition, Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. I, 20 / 94
ix
Chapter One
The History Correlated to Prokofiev’s Cello Compositions
Prokofiev’s Solo Cello Repertory
Throughout Sergey Prokofiev’s (1891–1953) long career, he produced seven solo cello works. These compositions include five complete and two incomplete solo cello works. In my document, I will delve into the music and history of the five complete cello works: Ballade for
Cello and Piano in C Minor, Op. 15 (1912), Cello Concerto, Op. 58 (1938), Adagio from
Cinderella, Op. 97bis (1944), Cello Sonata in C Major, Op. 119 (1949), and Sinfonia
Concertante in E Minor, Op. 125 (1952). Among Prokofiev’s two incomplete solo cello works:
Cello Concertino in G Minor Op. 132 and Unaccompanied Cello Sonata, Op. 134.
Prokofiev also composed two string quartets in B Minor, Op. 50 (1931) and in F Major,
Op. 92 (1941). Even some of these works were not completed by Prokofiev nor solo cello works, they will be discussed in the section The Cello Compositions Align with Prokofiev’s Life. The following section will discuss an influential cellist in Prokofiev’s cello composition and life.
1
The Cello Compositions Align with Prokofiev’s Life
Prokofiev’s compositional style can be divided into three stages. The first stage, the
Russian period, lasted from his birth until his twenties (1891–1918). The second stage (1918–36) includes his departure from Russia after the Revolution and his travels in the United States,
Germany, and Paris. The third stage, the Soviet Union period, extends from his return to the
Soviet Union until his death (1936–53). Prokofiev’s cello repertory likewise reflects his three compositional phases.
Prokofiev was considered a child prodigy both as a pianist and a composer and he was a prolific pianist, composer, and conductor.1 Before he had formal training at school, his mother gave him piano lessons at age of four. The next year, he composed Galop inden (Indian Galop)2 and completed a small opera at age nine called Velikan (The Giant).3 Before Prokofiev entered
St. Petersburg Conservatory, he studied theory and composition with Reinhold Glière. In 1904, he began formal training in piano, composition, and conducting studies at the Conservatory, where Prokofiev composed in many different genres, including piano concertos, suites and songs, orchestral works, choral works, and instrumental repertoire.4 In this Russian period, his
1 Richard Taruskin, On Russian Music (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), 283.
2 Suzanne Moisson-Franckhauser, Serge Prokofiev et les courants esthétiques de son temps: 1891-1953, Paris (4, rue de Lille, 75007): Publications orientalistes de France, 1974), 327.
3 The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrel, (New York: Grove’s Dictionaries, 2001) Vol. 20, 405.
4 Redepenning Dorothea, “Prokofiev, Sergey,” Grove Music Online, accessed November 5, 2018, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630- e-0000022402.
2
style featured textural strands (textual of the content), measured chromatic glissandos and lines, tremolos that blur melody, and clashing harmonic dissonances.5
During the first stage, Prokofiev completed his first solo instrumental composition,
Ballade for Cello and Piano in C Minor, Op. 15, in 1912. The Ballade is a short piece of eleven and a half minutes, yet it demonstrates a gloomy and fantastic quality. These compositional traits can be also examined in the Maddalena, Prokofiev’s one-act opera, and the Piano Sonata No. 2.
Furthermore, Prokofiev described his compositional style as consisting of “five developmental lines (styles).” The “lines,” which can also be examined in the Ballade, include the classical, the modern trend, the toccata, the lyrical, and the grotesque or “scherzo-ish.” Prokofiev first mentioned this idea in his early autobiography:
I should like to pause here to analyze the basic lines along which my work had developed up to this point. The first was the classical line..…This line takes sometimes a neoclassical form (sonatas, concertos)..…The second line, the modern trend..…Although this line covers harmonic language mainly, it also includes new departures in melody, orchestration and drama..…The third line is the toccata, or ‘motor’ line..…powerful expression…..The fourth line is lyrical: it appears first as a thoughtful and meditative moon, not always associated with melody, or at any rate with long melody…..The fifth, ‘grotesque’, line which some wish to ascribe to me as simply a deviation from the other lines…..I would prefer my music to be described as ‘scherzo-ish’ in quality, or else by three words describing various degree of the scherzo - whimsicality, laughter, mockery.”6
Prokofiev’s second stage, 1918–36, represented a sophisticated period; his compositional style alternated between freedom and rigidity according to the current political regulation.
Towards the end of the second period, Prokofiev premiered the String Quartet No. 1 in B Minor,
Op. 50 in 1931 and his second Parisian solo cello work, the Cello Concerto in E Minor, Op. 58
5 Gerald Abraham, The New Grove Russian Masters 2: Rimsky-Korsakov, Skryabin, Rakhmaninov, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Composer Biography Series (New York: W. W. Norton, 1986), 116.
6 Sergei Prokofiev, Soviet Diary 1927 and Other Writings, trans. and ed. Oleg Prokofiev (Boston: Northwestern University Press, 1992), 248–49.
3
in 1933, which was later premiered in the Soviet Union in 1938. After Prokofiev graduated from
St. Petersburg Conservatory, he went abroad for Sergey Pavlovich Diaghilev’s Russian opera and ballet company in London. The experience planted the seed in Prokofiev of composing symphonic works and exploring outside of Russia. By the end of the October Revolution, he left
Russia and toured in Japan, United States, Germany, and Paris, where he composed and performed. His debut in Chicago was in 1919 and built his connection to the Chicago Opera conductor, Cleofonte Campanini. Because of his meeting with Campanini, Prokofiev obtained the commission for the opera The Love for Three Oranges, Op. 33. It was premiered and conducted by Prokofiev in 1921, and it also was a successful performance. In the second stage of
Prokofiev’s life, he composed fewer instrumental works and focused on symphonies, symphonic suites, ballets, and operas.
In the later 1920s, Prokofiev referred to a self-conscious shift in his musical approach and defined a “new simplicity” style in his composition.7 He claimed, “One can achieve the ability to express oneself in a new, yet simple way.” It was a newly transformed sense of mastery in his compositional technique.8 The idea could possibly have been influenced by the climate of political regulation. Since 1932, the doctrine of socialist realism had been propagated by the
Communist Party Central Committee, and the Central Committee dissolved the proletarian arts organization and created a new organization, the Union of Soviet Composers in 1933. Musically, socialist realism demanded a relatively simple, accessible, and centered melodic language for patriotic or inspirational subject matter.9 The impact of socialist realism on creative activity
7 Simon Alexander Morrison, The People’s Artist: Prokofiev’s Soviet Years (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 14.
8 Natalia P. Savkina, Prokofiev, His Life and Times, trans. Catherine Young (Neptune City, N.J: Paganiniana Publications, 1984), 99.
9 J. Peter Burkholder, Donald Jay Grout, Claude V. Palisca, A History of Western Music, seventh edition (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 2006), 876.
4
necessitated the fashioning of a creative protocol for the form and content of Stalinist art.10
Prokofiev’s compositional style, therefore, was influenced by two factors, his musical beliefs and the doctrine of socialist realism.
He applied this “new simplicity” to his String Quartet No. 1 in B Minor, Op. 50 (1931),11 commissioned by the Library of Congress in Washington and performed by the Roth Quartet in
1931. Before this commissioned quartet, Prokofiev contemplated a quartet in 1916–17 and he named it the “white quartet,” as the quartet plays only on the white keys of the piano and absolutely diatonic melodies, a so-called “white theme.”12 Before composing the Quartet No.1,
Prokofiev studied Beethoven’s string quartets. Then, Prokofiev adopted one of his developmental lines, the classical line, in the first movement of the Quartet. It shows the composer’s witty ideas in music and his innovations also appears in his String Quartet No. 1.
The Quartet No.1 was distinct from others by two features: first, the finale movement of the
Quartet No. 1 is a slow movement, and second, the use of B minor as the tonality. He explained the material in the slow movement is the most significant in the whole piece; hence, it should be in the finale. The reason for composing in B minor is that it is a unique key among the quartets.13
Towards the end of his second stage of his touring life, Prokofiev then began sketching his second solo cello piece, Cello Concerto Op. 58 in 1934. The Cello Concerto reflects his compositional struggles. Prokofiev once said to his Parisian friend Serge Moreux, “I must merge, once more, with the atmosphere of my native land… Here, I am losing strength. I am in danger
10 Morrison, The People’s Artist: Prokofiev’s Soviet Years, 87.
11 Savkina, Prokofiev, His Life and Times, 99.
12 Sergey Prokofiev and Oleg Prokofiev, Soviet Diary 1927; and Other Writings (Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press, 1992), 271.
13 Ibid., 290–91.
5
of perishing of academicism. Yes, my friend, I am going back…”14 The cause was that not many people agreed with Prokofiev’s “new simplicity” style and he received the sharp reviews, and even from his friend, the Russian composer Nikolai Yakovlevich Myaskovsky, who wrote, “It seems that an element of caution has appeared in your work—it is especially obvious in the ending of your latest works, in the Sonatinas, for instance, where I can feel some kind of artificiality.”15 Some French critics commented that there was often in his music a dry rationality and scholasticism.16
As he was going through this lower ebb in Paris, he thought returning to Russia, “I must talk to people of my own flesh and blood, those who can give me back what I lack here: their songs, my song,” Prokofiev.17 He expected moving to Russia would rejuvenate his life and music, and the people would show their appreciation. He also told his Parisian friend, Serge
Moreux, “I must see the real winter again, and hear the Russian language in my ears.”18 Even though Prokofiev struggled to identify his characteristic musical style in his music in his later years in Paris, he neither gave up composing, nor compromised for the critics. Around 1936–37, he returned to the Soviet Union and continued sketches on the Cello Concerto Op. 58.
Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union was a long process. In the 1930s, he had been convinced to relocate to Moscow by Levon Atovmyan, an editor, publisher, and music official who played a critical role in the lives of Soviet composers in 1940s.19 Atovmyan contacted the
14 Savkina, Prokofiev, His Life and Times, 106.
15 Ibid..
16 Ibid..
17 Ibid..
18 Redepenning, “Prokofiev, Sergey,” Grove Music Online.
19 Levon Atovmyan was appointed Director and Deputy Chairman of the financial division of the Union of Soviet Composers, Mazfond. See Simon Alexander Morrison, The People’s Artist: Prokofiev’s
6
international Russian artists and arranged visits to the Soviet Union. Only Prokofiev kept connection with Atovmyan since 1932. The music official organized Prokofiev’s concerts while the composer was living in Paris. Because of the relationship, Prokofiev connected with another influential music official, Boris Gusman, who also worked for the Bolshoy (Bolshoi) Theater and
Belgoskino. Both Gusman and Atovmyan supported Prokofiev’s financial needs in addition to his performances in the 1930s.20
In Prokofiev’s third compositional phase, 1936–53, he resided in his homeland and it became a permanently residency in the Soviet Union. In this period, he composed more instrumental than previously. The works relating to the solo cello are the Cello Concerto, Op. 58
(1938), which was composed earlier but premiered only now, the String Quartet in F Major, Op.
92 (1941), the Adagio from Cinderella, Op. 97bis (1944), the Cello Sonata in C Major, Op. 119
(1949), the Sinfonia Concertante in E Minor, Op. 125 (1952), the draft of the Cello Concertino in G Minor, Op. 132, and the draft of the Unaccompanied Cello Sonata, Op. 134. During this stage, many of his works, like those of other Soviet composers, became relevant to patriotic causes. Yet, the Cello Concerto was one of the two works not marked by political consideration.
In November 1938, the Cello Concerto was premiered by the cellist Berezovsky at the second Festival of Soviet Music.21 However, it was regarded by many as a failure. Even though the cello part showed the virtuosic techniques, the melodies and orchestration made no impression on the public. The reasons could have been the fragmented melodic lines, imbalanced orchestration, lack of familiarity with the cello writing, or political issues. Prokofiev received
Soviet Years (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 16. “Prokofiev and Atovmyan : Correspondence, 1933–1952,” comp. and intro. Nelly Kravetz, in Prokofiev and His World, ed. Simon Morrison (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 190–91.
20 Morrison, The People’s Artist: Prokofiev’s Soviet Years, 19, 142.
21 Izrail Vladimirovich Nestyev and Roza Prokofieva, Sergei Prokofiev: His Musical Life (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1946), 137.
7
very little praise and yet much harsh criticism. Izrail Yampolsky22: wrote, “It lacks the soaring melody, the broad, expressive cantabile quality, which characterizes Prokofiev’s violin concertos.” His friend Myaskovsky also commented, “First-rate music but somehow it doesn’t quite come off.”23 Prokofiev then made some adjustments to it. In 1940, another cellist, Gregor
Pyatigorsky, presented the revision in the United States, yet the Cello Concerto was still not widely performed. After receiving the negative comments of the Cello Concerto, Prokofiev neither wrote a solo cello work in the next eleven years, nor promoted the piece again until he met Rostropovich.
For many reasons, Prokofiev made a plan to return to Moscow around 1935, despite maintaining a distance from the Soviet Union in the earlier years. In 1936–38, the beginning of
Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union, he still toured abroad to give performances. However, in
1938, he could not get his passport back since he was asked to hand it in as a formality. As a consequence, he could not travel outside of the Union. There are still more stories related to
Prokofiev’s return. 24 As Simon Morrison notes in his book, The People’s Artists: Prokofiev’s
Soviet Years, “The reader should consult the biography by David Nice, which is based on research at the London Prokofiev Archive, the principal holding of material about the composer’s pre-Soviet career.25
On 21 June 1941, the Soviet Union was attacked by Germany. Prokofiev, like all important artists, was evacuated in August. In the turbulent history of the twentieth century,
22 Izrail Yampolsky (1905–1976), Russian musicologist, violinist, and teacher. Son of Mark Ilich Yampolsky, cellist. (Grove Music Online)
23 Nestyev, S. Prokofiev: His Life and Times, 297.
24 Redepenning, “Prokofiev, Sergey,” Grove Music Online. Prokofiev later told the violinist Mikhail Goldstein, there could be no question of further tours abroad.
25 Morrison, The People’s Artist: Prokofiev’s Soviet Years, 5.
8
composers accommodated, adjusted, or compromised to the milieu, as did Prokofiev. During this time, his composition demonstrated strong Russian folk tunes. The String Quartet in F Major,
Op. 92 (1941) was composed during this time and it is based on Kabardinian themes from
Nalchik, one of the areas to which Prokofiev was evacuated. The themes give the String Quartet a modal character and brittle charm characteristic of the folk music.26 It is one of Prokofiev’s propaganda music. He showed advanced composition in the cello melodies of the String Quartet and even added a cello cadenza in the third movement. During the war years, he also composed
Zolushka (Cinderella) Op. 87, a ballet, in 1940–44; within it he found more of the cello’s fascinating tone and color. He then transposed the music in the ballet to the Adagio for Cello and
Piano, Op. 97bis in 1944, this piece will be further addressed in Chapter 3.
After World War II, Stalin’s culture authority, Andrei (Andrey) Zhdanov (1896–1948), led the Central Committee of the Communist Party and promulgated the Resolution on Music on
10 February 1948.27 Zhdanov condemned all the formalists. Early on, Prokofiev did not consider the impact of the Resolution and declined to attend a gathering of the Central Committee. The next day, however, an official visited him at his dacha and convinced him to participate in the gathering, a three-day event beginning on 10 January that involved artists of hard- and soft-line political mindsets.28 At the gathering, which Prokofiev considered it more as a social event than a political announcement, he did not pay attention to the speech; rather, he promoted his music.29
A few months later, between April 19 and 25, Prokofiev was required to attend the First All-
Union Congress of Soviet Composers which took place in Moscow. At the meeting, a Zhdanov’s
26 Redepenning, "Sergey Prokofiev," Grove Music Online.
27 Richard Taruskin, On Russian Music, 360.
28 Morrison, The People’s Artist: Prokofiev’s Soviet Years, 311–13.
29 The reason will be explained in Chapter 4.
9
favorite official, Tikhon Khrennikov (1913–2007), General Secretary of the Union, gave a speech that identified Prokofiev’s music as being ‘extreme’ formalism intended for a ‘narrow circle of aesthete-gourmands,’ and he cited The Duenna, the Cello Concerto, and the Sixth Piano
Sonata30 as examples of an out-of-touch radical.” Later, Khrennikov denounced Prokofiev’s music and performances, along with those of other major composers, Myaskovsky and
Shostakovich.31
Prokofiev experienced a depression and his health got worse. He thought his relocation would elevate his reputation; however, in reality his career was ebbing away. His naïve thinking and expectations conflicted with reality. His music was mostly banned from performance and publication. Meanwhile, he experienced similar turmoil in his personal life: around 1948, he divorced his first wife, Lina, and shortly after the separation, she was arrested and he became ill.32 Under these circumstances, his financial and personal health interrupted his musical activities, especially in the last five years of his life.33 He struggled, yet his friends helped him with publication and revision so that he was able to sustain his life. In this stage, he completed the Sonata for cello and piano, Op. 119 and the Sinfonia Concertante, Op. 125, especially represented Prokofiev’s turning point even though the piece was composed under Zhdanov’s
30 The Duenna, Op.86, is a four-acts ‘lyrico-comic’ opera by Sergey Prokofiev to a libretto by the composer and Mira Alexandrovna Mendelson (Prokofiev’s second wife). Richard Taruskin, “Betrothal in a Monastery,” Grove Music Online, https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O006765. Prokofiev's Sixth Sonata was first performed by Sviatoslav Richter at his official début on 26 November 1940, in the Small Hall of the Moscow Conservatory. David Fanning, “Richter [Rikhter], Sviatoslav,” accessed November 7, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.23408.
31 Morrison, The People’s Artist, 311–13.
32 For details about Lina’s arrest, see Morrison, The People’s Artist: Prokofiev’s Soviet Years, 306–311.
33 Taruskin, On Russian Music, 284.
10
constraints. More stories will be included in the following sections, Mstislav Rostropovich’s
Influence on Prokofiev’s Cello Composition and Chapters 4 and 5.
Prokofiev’s music was becoming more popular and he sketched more cello works; however, his health got worse. At the time of Prokofiev’s death in 1953, he left seven compositions unfinished. Two of them are in the solo cello repertory, the Cello Concertino in G minor, Op. 132 and Unaccompanied Cello, Op. 134. Today, Rostropovich and Kabalevsky completed the Cello Concertino while the Unaccompanied Cello remains unfinished. In fact, before Prokofiev passed away, he had almost completed the piano score for the three-movement concertino and marked clear indications of the instrumentation he wanted into the margins. He finished the second movement (Adagio) of the piano score for the Cello Concertino, but the first and third movements remained sketched. Rostropovich contributed to the rest of the Concertino
(Sonata-Allegro and Rondo through his understanding of Prokofiev’s approach and his experience of working with the composer. Rostropovich completed and premiered the Cello
Concertino with the piano score on 29 December 1956. Then he collaborated with Kabalevsky and completed the orchestration in 1960.34 The Unaccompanied Cello had a different destiny.
Only the first movement was completed by Vladimir Blok, who called it Sonata for Cello Solo in
C# Minor, Op. 134; he published this movement in Hamburg in 2014. From the list of
Prokofiev’s last seven compositions, the cello is the only instrumental treated soloistically.35
Hence, the solo cello repertory is important in Prokofiev’s life.
34 Elizabeth Wilson, Rostropovich: The Musical Life of the Great Cellist, Teacher, and Legend (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2008), 125.
35 In Samuel’s book, the reader can find a list of all of Prokofiev’s works. In the chronology, the author also lists Prokofiev’s life events and major historical events. However, there is an error on page 172,:1944/op. 97b Adagio/ is for cello and piano, instead of violin and piano. Claude Samuel, Prokofiev, trans. Miriam John (London: Calder and Boyars, 1971).
11
Mstislav Rostropovich’s Influence on Prokofiev’s Cello Composition
An influential figure in Prokofiev’s cello music was the prominent Russian cellist, composer, and conductor, Mstislav Rostropovich (1927–2007). Rostropovich was an intelligent and passionate artist who inspired many performers and composers internationally. He was considered the most influential cellist of the twentieth century. To Prokofiev, his musical interpretation was so convincing that Prokofiev was inspired to compose the Sonata for Cello and Piano, Op. 119. Rostropovich performed the Sonata for the Committee on Arts Affairs and the Union to pass the “hearing” for Prokofiev’s music. Beginning with the Sonata in 1948,
Prokofiev’s cello repertory have connections to Rostropovich: The Sinfonia Concertante in E
Minor, Op. 125 was dedicated to him, and the remaining Cello Concertino in G Minor, Op. 132 was completed by him.
Rostropovich and Prokofiev had similar experiences in their time. Beginning from their musical education, both were taught piano at a very young age by their mothers.36 Rostropovich learned cello from his father Leopold Rostropovich, and uncle Semyon Kozolupov. His compositional talent was discovered by his father’s friend, Reinhold Glière, who had been
Prokofiev’s teacher. Yet, Rostropovich and Prokofiev did not meet each other because of their teacher. They meet at a Rostropovich’s recital features another eminent composer, Nikolay
Myakovsky, who was Prokofiev’s close friend from their study years, with whom Rostropovich and Prokofiev met the first time. Rostropovich said, “I fell in love with Prokofiev’s music in
1943.” He longed to meet Prokofiev in person once he learned of the composer’s return to
Moscow. In 1945, he performed Myakovsky’s concerto with piano at his recital at the Small Hall
36 Noël Goodwin, “Rostropovich, Mstislav,” Grove Music Online, November 26, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2258083.
12
of the Conservatory and he was introduced to Prokofiev: “Of course he took next to no notice of me, since I was just a boy,” Rostropovich said, “But, after December 1945, when I won the All-
Union competition, he started to remember who I was.”
Rostropovich’s admiration of Prokofiev and aspiration to know him became the motive to practice his Cello Concerto. Rostropovich once said, “Of course I dreamed of being able to show
Prokofiev how well I played the cello, and I studied the work hard…Who knows, he might actually like the way I played?”37 Indeed, Prokofiev appreciated his performance. The story can be traced back to a performance, that is, Rostropovich’s recital on 21 December 1947.38
Prokofiev attended a diverse concert dedicated to the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Great October
Socialist Revolution in the Small Hall of the Conservatory that featured Rostropovich, recent first-prize winner of an international festival for young performers in Prague. In the evening, the twenty-year-old cellist performed Prokofiev’s Cello Concerto with a piano reduction with
Sviatoslav (Svyatoslav) Richter, who was eventually Prokofiev’s favorite pianist.39 In the concert, Rostropovich used the score, which he had conceived of in Paris for Gregor
Pyatigorsky. His interpretation of the music appealed to Prokofiev and inspired him deeply.40
Prokofiev said to Rostropovich, "I think there is some good materials in the piece, but I don't like its shape. How would you like to work with me on revising it?" Rostropovich recalled, “I remember when I played his Op. 58 Concerto in recital with piano. Prokofiev was in the
37 Wilson, Rostropovich: The Musical Life of the Great Cellist, Teacher, and Legend, 67.
38 The date is controversy. In Wilson’s book, Rostropovich dates the recital to 18 January 1948. However, in Morrison’s journal, “Rostropovich’s Recollections,” he asserts, the date was 21 December 1947. Simon Morrison, “Rostropovich’s Recollections,” Oxford Universiyt Press, Music & Letters 91, no. 1 (February 2010): 85.
39 Simon Morrison, “Rostropovich’s Recollections,” Music and Letters 91, no. 1 (February 2010): 85.
40 Morrison, The People’s Artist, 343.
13
audience and he came up to me afterwards and said that, I was so elated by his offer that I practically floated out of the hall!” 41
Prokofiev and Rostropovich considered each other as eminent artists. On 8 June
1947, Rostropovich sent a note to Prokofiev congratulating him on the Stalin Prize for his Violin
Sonata while also wishing him “health, long years of life and many cello works.” Also, when
Prokofiev’s Sonata, Op. 119 was commissioned by the Radio Committee, he regarded
Rostropovich as an advisor and partner on the revision and took his advice on the music. During
Rostropovich’s touring in Germany, he tried to stay in contact with Prokofiev while the latter was working on the Sonata. He wrote, “If I'm needed to change anything in the cello part I can always come to Moscow.” He also proposed another project at the end of the letter, “To avoid completely getting on your nerves, I won't ask anything about the Cello Concerto, but in my heart, I'm hoping.”42 During their collaboration, Rostropovich sometimes lived in Prokofiev’s dacha or visited him in a hospital to work on the cello music. (The Sonata is further discussed in
Chapter 4)
The cooperation on this piece began a new phase in Prokofiev’s cello compositions.
Rostropovich’s advice extended to more of Prokofiev’s works, not limited to the cello. In a letter written to Atovmyan on 22 June 1950 about editing the Sonata’s ending, Prokofiev wrote, “Let
Rostropovich + Richter decide this.”43 Both trusted each other. The following anecdotes illustrate the relationship between them. In a conversation in 1990, Rostropovich states,
I was so devoted to Prokofiev and Shostakovich and admired them so much. It was actually because of them that I stopped composing. Prokofiev would sometimes entrust
41 Tim Janof, “Conversation with Mstislav Rostropovich,” accessed November 19, 2018, http://www.cello.org/Newsletter/Articles/rostropovich/rostropovich.htm.
42 Ibid..
43 Simon Alexander Morrison, ed., Sergey Prokofiev and His World, Princeton Paperbacks (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 250.
14
me with his scores in their piano version while asking me to transcribe them into their definitive form.44
According to a Rostropovich’s interview in April 2004,
Prokofiev initially called the Seventh Symphony a “Children's Symphony”; on account of the Symphony's appeal to adults, he ended up changing the title. I remembered going to present the Symphony with Vedernikov for the approval to the Radio Committee. Vedernikov played the piano score of the first three movements alone; I assisted him with the glissandi in the fourth movement. Rostropovich adds that “the old ladies” on the Radio Committee editorial staff “went into rapture” over the score.45
In 1950–52, Rostropovich and Prokofiev reworked the Cello Concerto, Op. 58 as the
Sinfonia Concertante, Op. 125. Indeed, there are certain materials from the Cello Concerto, and yet there are distinctive structural changes. The Sinfonia Concertante’s three movements are more even, and the phrases are more connected. Both concertos are virtuosic works, and yet with the adjustments or advises by Rostropovich, the Sinfonia Concertante is more expressive and lyrical and has achieved the new simplicity. I agree with the comment from Claude Samuel: “It is possessed of a clean-cut harmony which contrasts strongly with the Cello Concerto.”46 Today, the Sinfonia Concertante is a well known and more widely played and recorded than the Cello
Concerto. Prokofiev praised Rostropovich in his diary for his “very good advice concerning concerto performance and the general plan (of Sinfonia Concertante)”47 and dedicated the
Sinfonia Concertante to Rostropovich. The piece was premiered by Rostropovich and conducted by Richter. (The Sinfonia Concertante is detailed in Chapter 5)
44 Mstislav Rostropovich, Galina Vishnevskaya, and Claude Samuel, Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya: Russia, Music, and Liberty, trans. E. Thomas Glaso (Portland, Or: Amadeus Press, 1995), 39.
45 Morrison, The People’s Artist, 373, 470.
46 Claude Samuel, Prokofiev, trans. Miriam John (London/New York: Marion Boyars, 2000), 153.
47 Morrison, 380.
15
Receiving the success of the Sonata and Sinfonia Concertante, Prokofiev planned on composing more repertoire for the cello and he did. However, destiny interrupted his hope. Still,
Rostropovich’s talents and passion are demonstrated in the composer’s remaining cello work,
Cello Concertino in G Minor, Op. 132. He completed the piano score and cello music in 1958 and collaborated with Kabalevsky to arrange its orchestration, and the piece was then published in 1960. Today, the revised cello concerto—Sinfonia Concertante—and the Cello Concertino are prevalent and recognized by the public. In retrospect, the Cello Sonata is the significant transition point of Prokofiev’s cello composition, as well as his meeting with Rostropovich, who performed the composer’s Cello Concerto. The only thing that cannot be denied is
Rostropovich’s significance in Prokofiev’s life and especially in his cello composition.
16
Chapter Two:
Ballade for Cello and Piano in C Minor, Op. 15
Sergey Prokofiev’s Ballade is the earliest piece in his cello solo repertory and stands as representative of his early compositional style. Even though it is not Prokofiev’s most popular cello piece today, he performed it several times during his life and tried to have it published. In addition, its motives and musical styles reappear in one of Prokofiev’s later works, the Sonata for Cello and Piano in C major, Op. 119 (1949). In this chapter, I will introduce and categorize the music, themes, and motives of the Ballade. In addition, I will show how similar material is treated in Prokofiev’s Sonata for Cello and Piano. In the end, I will discuss an element of performance practice, pizzicato techniques, which contribute strongly to the character in the
Ballade. Chapter One demonstrates the important role the Ballade plays among Prokofiev’s cello repertory.
17
Historical Background
The Ballade for Cello and Piano in C Minor, Op. 15 was composed in 1912 and it was commissioned by an armature cellist, Nikolai P. Ruzsky, described by the composer as “a very nice person, a wealthy businessman who played cello well and loved to organize chamber groups,” and a person with whom Prokofiev played.48 Prokofiev then dedicated the Ballade to
Ruzsky. The theme of Ballade are derived from one of Prokofiev’s assignments when he studied composition and theory with Reinhold Glière in his young life. Before entering the St. Petersburg
Conservatory, Prokofiev had written a three-movement violin sonata for Glière and later transcribed the main theme of the first movement of the violin sonata for the cello ballade. Of this juvenilia, Prokofiev later wrote, “The manuscript of this sonata [i.e., the unpublished violin sonata] has been preserved, but I remember that it marked a great step forward as compared to the symphony....Ten years later I used the main theme of the first movement for my Ballade for
Cello and Piano, Opus 15.”49
The Ballade is not published until 1915 in St. Petersburg. It was after couple of performances: the first performance was given by the composer himself on the piano and the
Moscovite cellist Evsei Beloúsov on 5 January 1914 in Moscow at the Evenings of
Contemporary Music. The same program was presented again on 20 February in St. Petersburg.
Along with the Ballade, the program included the Second Sonata, Op.14 and a number of the piano pieces in Op.12 were given their first appearance as well.50 Prokofiev remembered another
48 Harlow Robinson, Sergei Prokofiev: A Biography (New York: Viking, 1987), 88.
49 Sergey Prokofiev, Prokofiev by Prokofiev: A Composer’s Memoire, ed. David H. Appel, trans. Guy Daniels (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), 61.
50 I. V. Nestyev, Prokofiev, trans. Florence Jonas (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1960), 82–83.
18
appearance with Beloúsov and performed the Ballade in a concert on 23 January in Moscow.51
The concerts received several positive reviews and enhanced the young composer’s reputation.
As a result, Prokofiev preserved close connections to the major concert organizations: the Siloti,
Koussevitzky, and Sheremetyev orchestras and the Russian Musical Society. The Ballade was played again after a few years. It was performed at Siloti’s third chamber concert on 19
December 1916 in the Small Hall of the St. Petersburg Conservatory and at the second Evenings of Contemporary Music concert on 18 February 1917 by the cellist Ye Wolf-Israel in Moscow
Conservatory.52 For every concert then, Prokofiev played the Ballade.
Prokofiev stressed that the Ballade represented his earlier music and that, later in life he strove for more complexity.53 At the same time, the piece met with mild controversy. On one hand, Nikolay Yakovlevich Miaskovsky praised it: “It seems as though it had been written especially for Casals.”54 On the other hand, Vacheslav Karatygin stated that “highly interesting moments, on the whole, this piece is long-winded and poorly suited to the technical resources and possibility of the cello.”55 While there is repetition within each section of the Ballade, I will show in this document that there are also differences between repeated sections.
Among Prokofiev’s other works for solo cello, the Sonata for Cello and Piano, Op. 119 represents the third stage of the composer’s style. In contrast to the Ballade, the Sonata was well- received, recorded, and frequently performed. In Prokofiev’s late period, he was suffering from
51 Sergey Prokofiev, Sobranie sochinenií [Collected Works], vol. 18 (Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1966), IX.
52 Nestyev, Prokofiev, 125.
53 Prokofiev, Prokofiev by Prokofiev, 62.
54 Nestyev, 72.
55 Ibid.
19
both his illness and political repression. After conducting the 1945 premiere of the Fifth
Symphony, his reputation with the regime fell, and he lived with increasing anxiety until his death.56 As a consequence, the Sonata and the Sinfonia Concertante (1951) use apparent simplicity to express poignant emotion with great originality. The music of Prokofiev’s last years reveals a combination of natural compositional skill and a certain creative weariness.57 He strove to fight with his art for a better life. The music in the Sonata vividly depicts Prokofiev’s emotion.
The Ballade does not have that much expression, and yet it presents Prokofiev’s quintessential character. Compared to the Sonata, even though both were composed in
Prokofiev’s native country, they were created within vastly different political and cultural contexts. The former was juvenilia and composed in freedom; the latter is a piece of eloquence under Soviet officialdom. Despite that, the musical materials and compositional techniques between the two are associated. More importantly, the Ballade planted the seeds for Prokofiev’s future cello compositions. Therefore, it is a piece we cannot neglect when studying his cello works.
56 Geoffrey Norris and David Nice, Prokofiev, Sergey Sergeyevich, The Oxford Companion to Music. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e5375.
57 Ibid.
20
Musical Analysis
In the Musical Analysis, there will be three major topics in this chapter. Information will explain each topic. What follows is musical analysis shown in a table. The table shows the measure numbers, phrases, and motives. “Motive” describes the musical material shared by the two pieces.
Topic One: Overview
While defining the forms, themes, and motives, I will give an overview of the Ballade and then compare it with the Sonata by showing both the following chart example and selected excerpts. The following table (Example 1) provides an overview of the Ballade for Cello and
Piano in C Minor, Op. 15 and helps to facilitate the subsequent musical-theoretical explanation.
TABLE 1: Overview of the Ballade
Measure Form Phrase Character numbers Main melody. A slow introduction with a long tonic note at the Section A mm. 1–47 end of this section. The main melody switches to another clef for the second time. Rhythmic section. Pizzicato throughout the entire section, only Section B mm. 48–111 arco (play with bow) or tremolo from mm. 96–103. The melody continuously repeats with different material.
Section C mm. 112–157 Development section. Key changes.
Recapitulation section. Main melody with rhythmic Section C’ mm. 158–202 augmentation. Lyric theme repeats in the cello, yet it gets more complicated Section D mm. 203–236 in the piano when the lyric theme returns.
Section A’ mm 237–end Main melody. Switching the clefs. A juxtaposed chromatic scale at the end.
21
Topic Two: Comparison
Each section in Table1contains a few major motives that connect with the Sonata, except in sections C and C’ in the Ballade. In the next topic, I explain the relationship between the two pieces through the table below (TABLE 2). There are five major motives in the Ballade that relate to the Sonata. The middle column, marked “Motives,” describes the musical material shared by the two pieces.
TABLE 2: The motives shared between the Ballade and the Sonata
The Ballade Motives The Sonata
Section A Section mm. 4–47 Motive 1: Movt. I: Beginning–m. 14 The two pieces begin with a slow introduction and end
with a whole note, connecting to the next section.
“Piena voce” is indicated in both pieces at the beginning and is not a dynamic in the cello part. (Ex: Excerpt B1 and S1)
Section B Section mm. 48–95 Motive 2: Movt. II: Beginning–m. 41 Rhythmic character: n q (short notes followed by a
long note) and rests. Also, both sections are played with staccato or pizzicato. (Ex: Excerpt B2 and S2)
Section B Section mm. 96–103 Motive 3: Movt. III: mm. 126–133 The main melody is in the piano part and it is legato. The cello functions as an accompaniment and plays tremolo
throughout the entire section. (Ex. Excerpt B3 and S3)
Section D Section mm. 201–236 Motive 4: Movt. III: mm. 102–125 Piano leads with a melody and connects to a new theme and key change.
(Ex. Excerpt B4 and S4)
22
Section A Section m. 253–end Motive 5: Movt. III: m. 199–end The ending recapitulates the very beginning and modifies the melody.
’ (Ex. Excerpt B5 and S5)
Topic Three: Music Excerpts demonstrate the motives.
(Excerpts with “B” means an excerpt from the Ballade; Excerpts with “S” means an excerpt from the Sonata; Numbers 1–5 present the example of Motives 1–5)
Example 1: Motive 1 shared by Ballade and Sonata: Excerpts B1 & S1
Excerpt B1: mm. 1–8 and mm. 34–40
(Excerpt B1 continued)
23
Excerpt B1: mm. 34–40
Excerpt S1: Motive 1 of the Sonata: 1st movt., mm. 1–14:
24
Example 2: Motive 2 shared by Ballade and Sonata: Excerpts B2 & S2
Excerpt B2: mm. 48–56
Excerpt S2: Motive 2 of the Sonata: 2nd movt, mm. 1–12:
(Excerpt S2 continued)
25
Excerpt S2: Motive 2 of the Sonata: 2nd movt, mm. 1–12:
Example 3: Motive 3 shared by Ballade and Sonata: Excerpts B3 & S3
Excerpt B3: mm. 96–103
26
Excerpt S3: Motive 3 of the Sonata: 3rd movt., mm. 126–133:
27
Example 4: Motive 4 shared by Ballade and Sonata: Excerpts B4 & S4
Excerpt B4: mm. 201–205:
28
Excerpt S4: Motive 4 of the Sonata 3rd movt., mm. 102–112:
29
Example 5: Motive 5 shared by Ballade and Sonata, Excerpts B5 & S5:
Excerpt B5: mm. 253–262
30
Excerpt S5: Motive 5 of the Sonata 3rd movt., mm. 199–203
31
Performance Guide
pizzicato techniques
An essential performance practice to discuss in the Ballade is its pizzicato techniques. In the B section (mm. 96–103), there are eight measures of tremolos, mm. 48–95; the rest of the section is performed with pizzicato. In order to achieve the variety of sound that is indicated by the composer, the pizzicatos played must be played with various strokes and fingers. The examples are as follows:
ü mm. 48–81: The accented notes are played with the right-hand finger. The finger holds
the string sideway in advance to play the accented note. If plucking the string(s)
vertically to the fingerboard for the accent, it will create a snapping sound, which is not
indicated here.
Example 6: Ballade, mm. 48–50
ü mm. 82–83: The pizzicatos are played with the left hand Or, only m. 83 is played with the
left hand. The purpose is that the right hand should prepare to remove the mute.
Example 7: Ballade, mm. 82–83
ü mm. 104–11: The accented notes are played with the right thumb. There are two main
reasons for using the thumb pizzicato. At m. 104 is a faster tempo, so the first reason is to
prepare more quickly for the following note. The second reason is to create a new sound.
32
The music here modulates from mm. 48–55, and mm. 104–11 is the third time repeated
passage in the same section. Therefore, I suggested playing mm. 104–11 with right-hand
thumb.
Example 8: Ballade, mm. 104–7
ü mm. 58–59 and mm. 78–79: The melody of the two fragments are distinctive for the
dynamic indicated diminuendo (dim.), and yet these two fragments is an ascending
gesture. An ascending line is often played with natural crescendo of an ascending line. In
addition, the fragment is the only ascending line with dim. in the Ballade. Therefore, it is
important to emphasize the uniqueness.
Example 9: Ballade, mm. 58–59
33
Chapter Three
Adagio from Cinderella for Cello and Piano, Op. 97bis
The five-and-a-half-minutes Adagio presents a variety of cello timbres by using a wide register, dance-like accompaniment, and colorful harmonies. Nowadays, however, it is an overlooked piece. The solo music contains a more complex melody and performance skills than the original melodies played by the cello section in the ballet. In this chapter, following the
“History Background” section, I will discuss the reasons behind Prokofiev’s preference for composing in “C Major.” In the “Musical Analysis” section, I will illustrate these differences through a comparison of the original Cinderella ballet and its arrangement to the Adagio. In addition, in the “Performance Guide” section, I will examine the music score publications and its erring notes, followed by the “Cello Music with Suggested Fingerings.”
The research on the Adagio was a challenge because of the lack of the primary resources explaining why Prokofiev transposed the Adagio for cello and piano. Hitherto, the rationale for the composition of the Adagio, Op. 97bis is mentioned in a note from the editors of the collected works, “The Adagio, Op. 97bis was Prokofiev’s own transposition from his ballet Cinderella.”58
Rostropovich also discussed the Adagio, Op. 97bis in his interviews with the authors Samuel and
Wilson.59 Therefore, it is important to research this piece and establish another resource for
Prokofiev’s cello repertory.
58 Sergey Prokofiev, Zolushka balet [Cinderella Ballet], Sobranie sochinenií [Collected Works], vol. 11 (Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1959), 6.
59 Claude Samuel is the author who interviewed with Rostropovich, and his wife, Vishnecskaya. Their conversation is in Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya: Russia, Music, and Liberty. Elizabeth Wilson is the author who interview and recorded Rostropovich’s life in Rostropovich: The Musical Life of the Great Cellist, Teacher, and Legend. Although Rostropovich is the main subject in their books, they discussed the important Russian composers, including Prokofiev, and Russian history are recorded in the books. Also, both of the authors wrote contributed to articles, which provide the
34
Historical Background of the Adagio, Op. 97bis
Cinderella [Zolushka], Op. 87, is a ballet and the origin of the Adagio. The ballet was composed during a period of turmoil, 1941–46, and it is the one of Prokofiev’s two works not marked by political consideration; the other being the Cello Concerto. Before beginning with
Cinderella, another radical ballet that needs to be mentioned is Romeo and Juliet [Romeo i
Dzhul’yetta], Op. 64, composed in 1934–38. Romeo and Juliet was commissioned for the
Mariyinsky Theater in Leningrad by Sergey Radlov, who supported performances of Prokofiev’s music and worked with the composer—even on altering the ending of Shakespeare’s Romeo and
Juliet.60 Not long after the commission of Romeo and Juliet, in the end of 1934, the administration of the Mariyinsky Theater was changed in honor of Sergey Kirov; thereafter, the venue’s name was changed to the Kirov Theater, and the second suite of Romeo and Juliet was performed there in 1937. However, the first performance of the full ballet in Russia was not until three years later, on 11 January 1940, because of choreography and administrative changes.
Despite the interruptions, Romeo and Juliet was well-received. After the successful premiere, the
Kirov Theater commissioned Prokofiev to write Cinderella, a new ballet with a scenario by
Nikolai Volkov and planned to stage in 1942.61
Cinderella was begun after 1940, yet the war interrupted Prokofiev’s compositional progress. During the War, Prokofiev focused on the current issue (political climate) and
evidence of Prokofiev and Rostropovich’s relationship in Rostropovich, Cellist of the Century: The Complete Warner Recordings, vol. Booklet (New York, New York: Warner Classics, 2017).
60 Prokofiev explained, “The reasons that let us to such a barbarism were purely choreographic. Living people can dance, but the dead cannot dance lying down.” Quoted in Harlow Robinson, Sergei Prokofiev: A Biography (New York, N.Y., USA: Viking, 1987)., 302.
61 Francis Maes, A History of Russian Music: From Kamarinskaya to Babi Yar (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 325–26, 328.
35
composed a new opera, War and Peace. Therefore, Cinderella was not finished when Kirov had planned to stage in 1942. Prokofiev composed the score under pressure and finally completed it in 1944. It was premiered at the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow in 1945. In fact, before the first performance of the full ballet, Prokofiev transposed themes from Cinderella to piano suites and published these between 1942–44: The Three Pieces, Op. 95 in 1942, the Ten Pieces, Op. 97 in
1943, and the Adagio for cello and piano, Op. 97bis and Six Pieces for piano Op. 102 in 1944.62
The Adagio for cello and piano is derived from the thirty-sixth scene in the second act of
Cinderella, the Duet of the Prince and Cinderella [Duet Printsa i Zolushka]. Prokofiev presented his innovative “New Simplicity” style in this ballet. As Rostropovich once said, “Many Russian composers are recognized as ‘sentimental and willingly wear their hearts on their sleeves,’
Prokofiev’s compositional style is not the typical Russian. As for Prokofiev, and some other composers, such as Shostakovich, Stravinsky, although they are Russian, they achieved such a lofty level in their art that they form a part of a universal heritage.”63 The Adagio vividly presents the character that Rostropovich described. Its music is romantic and has a waltz-like rhythm, and yet the chromatic scales and expanded tonality bring a refreshing timbre.
It is unfortunate that the Adagio is an overlooked piece today. Rostropovich once said,
“To play a lot of miniatures where first and foremost one must develop a beautiful singing sound and work on filigree, minute details of color and timbre.”64 He had this idea from the critics of his performances. He discovered the Adagio on the radio and was attracted to it, even if he did not know the name of the piece or the composer. He recalled, “One day I hear on the radio a
62 Sergey Prokofiev, Zolushka balet, Sobranie sochinenií, vol. 11, 5–6.
63 Claude Samuel, Mstislav Rostropovich, and Galina Vishnevskaya, Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya: Russia, Music, and Liberty, trans. E. Thomas Glaso (Portland, Or: Amadeus Press, 1995), 68.
64 Wilson, Rostropovich: The Musical Life of the Great Cellist, Teacher, and Legend, 43.
36
gorgeous cello piece that was unknown to me. I caught only the name of the cellist, Stogorsky.
So, after having caught a ‘glimpse’ of the cello work, I went to Stogorsky in the middle of the night to ask him the title of the piece. He informed me that it was the Adagio from Cinderella that Prokofiev himself had transcribed for cello and piano.” Rostropovich immediately copied it down since it was unpublished. Shortly after, he played it in public.65
The Adagio is indeed an attractive piece, and it contains colorful melodies, expanded tonalities and rhythms, and an elegant ballet touch. It is suitable for various performances.
Therefore, despite little historical attention paid to the Adagio for cello and piano, it is a work that should not be neglected, especially in Prokofiev’s solo cello repertory.
65 Rostropovich’s description quoted in Claude Samuel, Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya: Russia, Music, and Liberty, trans. E. Thomas Glaso (Portland, OR: Amadeus Press, 1995), 154.
37
Prokofiev’s Use of C Major
“Plenty to be said in C Major”—Schoenberg66
Through my study of the Prokofiev’s cello repertory, I wondered why the music is composed so often in C Major. Even when the main tonic key is not C major, the chord is in C or the modulations will go to C. For instance, the key of the Ballade is C Minor, and yet the key shifts to C Major at m. 14; the Cello Concerto begins in E Minor in the first movement, and yet the second movement and the first half of the third movement are in C Major; the Adagio from
Cinderella is apparently in C Major; and lastly, the Sinfonia Concertante has E Minor for the outer movements while the second movement is in C Major.
David Fanning discussed the master of C Major Key and categorized the possible meaning, function, and language of the use of C Major. The key, for instance, can symbolize innocence and a naïve character, as it does in the opening melody in Prokofiev’s Peter and the
Wolf. Other technical categories and structural functions that apply to Prokofiev’s cello repertory include:67
1) A form of transformation (C Minor to C Major), or as reference point within atonality:
The Ballade.
2) Affirmed Classicism: The Cello Sonata and the Adagio for cello and piano
3) From other keys to C Major: The Cello Concerto and the Sinfonia Concertante.
66 Richard Taruskin, On Russian Music, 237.
67 Peter and the Wolf excerpt from Fanning, “Shostakovich,” 102. The rest of technical categories and structural function are listed the Fanning’s article from 106–08. In my document, I only show those related in Prokofiev’s cello repertory.
38
The reasons for categorizing these cello works explained here:
1) The Ballade is in C Minor, and yet it changes frequently to C Major. In every section,
it transforms from minor to major: In Section A, the transformation is at m. 14; in
Section B, the left hand is C-major chord; in Section C, the transformation is at m.
124; and in Section C’, the transformation is at m. 188. Section D is in D Major, yet
the key changes to C Major at m. 227. Finally, in Section A’, the transformation is at
m. 251. Sometimes the C major key is an atonality reference point or a diatonic key,
like the C major in Section A. Therefore, Prokofiev’s use of C major in the Ballade
reveals the structural function as a form of transformation, or as a reference point
within atonality.
2) The affirmed classicism type means the music is composed in the key of C Major,
which are Cinderella and the Cello Sonata. To demonstrate the prevalence of the key,
the C-major scale or arpeggio are identified in the “Performance Guide” section of
Chapters 3 and 4.
3) As for the Cello Concerto and the Sinfonia Concertante, both are composed in E
Minor, yet they have second movements in C Major.
Indeed, “Prokofiev was acknowledged as a C-Major specialist.”68 Prokofiev mentioned in his diary that he had invented a system of transposition to C major because it is straight forward and simple to understand a chord. He admired the composition by Liszt in which the clarinets and French horns are all in C major. Prokofiev introduced this approach in his First Piano
68 Quoted in Fanning, “Shostakovich,” 102.
39
Concerto. Later, Schoenberg published a score in which all the instruments were in the key of C.
Not until in the 1980s–90s did Prokofiev’s non-transposing method begin to be adopted and achieve the prevalence it has today.69 Although the use of C Major did not necessarily indicate the tonality of performing, but in print, especially in the transposition of a score,70 and from his description one thing that can be observed is that he favored the key of C from early on in his systematic composition. Taruskin also praises Prokofiev’s use of C major as “special genius, more compelling than any other twentieth-century musician.”71
The purpose of the research and study on the Adagio, Op. 97bis is to help performers bring life to the music and readers realize its expression, though there is no direct reason that
Prokofiev composed it in C Major. As Fanning emphasizes, the point of this section is to provide
“a way of reading (a composer’s music), rather than an attempt to fix the meaning or to mind- read the composer’s intention.”72
69 Sergey Prokofiev and Oleg Prokofiev, Soviet Diary 1927; and Other Writings, 244 & 303.
70 Fanning, “Shostakovich,”102.
71 Richard Taruskin, On Russian Music, 237.
72 Fanning, “Shostakovich,”125.
40
Musical Analysis
In this section, there will be two major topics: An overview and a comparison. I will provide a brief explanation for each topic. What follows is a table of the comparison. The table shows the measure numbers, tempo marking, form, and phrase character.
Overview of the Adagio
In order to compare the Adagio with the orchestral score of the Cinderella ballet and understand the music and composition, I provide a table to illustrate the form and phrase character in the Adagio:
TABLE 3: The Adagio for cello and piano, Op. 97bis:
Measures Tempo Form Phrase Characters Notes
§ The melody is simple without tempo change. The rhythm features qe mm. 1–13 Section A § The ending of Section A is a descending line (dim.) § Two voices with a C-major melody in one line. Adagio (Example 10)
§ The register is higher than Section A. § The rhythm is similar to Section A, yet Section B mm. 13–21 Section B adds a little more complexity. § Section B ends with an ascending line with dim.
§ The double stops first appear in Sections C. mm. 21–31 Section C § The solo melody here is originally performed by the string section in the orchestral setting.
§ The most expressive section. Poco piu animato § The texture is thicker than in Section C, though the melody is similar to it. mm. 31–43 Section C’ § The melody stays in the high register longer by modifying some of the notes in Section C, which was played in a lower register.
41
§ The tempo stretches at m. 39 in the last beat in the piano (Example 11) § m. 43 should not slow down. The espressivo marking is only in the piano.
§ Section B’ is a modified Section B with added double stops, more dynamics, and tempo changes. In Section B, there are no double stops in the cello. § A different chord and meter are in the end of mm. 21–31 Section B’ Section B’. Section B concludes with a C-major arpeggio and switches from 9/8 to 6/8 while Section B’ ends with C-major diatonic triads ad remains in 9/8. (Example 12)
Adagio § C-major scale in the piano first, and the cello imitates it. § The two voices in one line in C-major scale at mm. 52–53 (Example 10) first appears in the cello. m. 52–end Coda § The cello ends with a C-major arpeggio while the piano suspends the resolution from a G dominanat- seventh chord to the second-version C-major chord. The C-major chord is delayed until the last beat.
Comparison with the Cello Section Solo in the Ballet
The main cello melody in the Adagio for cello and piano, Op. 97bis is mostly played by the cello section with the bassoon or horn in the Adagio in Cinderella, Op. 87. This observation is based on a comparison of the orchestral score Act II, Scene 36 of Cinderella, Op. 87 and the piano score of the Adagio for Cello and Piano, Op. 97bis. However, the rest of the melody in the
Adagio is played by various instruments, which will be illustrated in Table 4.
Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to understand Prokofiev’s orchestration. That would help performers to sense the timbre and color in music.
42
TABLE 4: Comparison The Adagio for cello and piano, Op. 97bis and the Act II, Scene 36 of Cinderella, Op. 87
Section Measure number Adagio for Cello and Piano, Op. Cinderella, Op. 87: Act II, Scene on the piano score 97bis 36
It is the piano solo for the first It is tutti for the first two two measures. measures. mm. 1–10 Section A Section Then, the cello plays the main Then, the cello section and the melody. bassoon play the main melody.
The piano plays the arpeggios and It is played by clarinet and harp. mm. 10–13 scales. The flute enters in mm. 11–12.
Section B Section It is played by cello section with the horn section from m. 13–19, mm. 13–21 The cello plays the main melody. and the bassoon section from
mm.19–20.
m. 21 The cello plays the triplets & It is played by the drum. rhythm m. 31
Section C and C Cand Section mm. 22–25 The cello plays double stops It is played mainly by the string & melody. section. mm. 32–35
m. 26 The strand line (textual of the It is played by the cello, the viola, & content) at m. 26, 31, and 36 in 1
and the woodwinds. m. 36 the left hand of piano
mm. 28–31 The cello plays the high register It is played by the violin section & melodies. and the woodwinds. mm. 38–44
Section B Section The main melody is played by the The cello plays the main melody cello section and the horn section. m. 44–51 with the double stops There are no double stops in the 1
cello section.
Coda It is played by the clarinet and m. 51–52 The piano plays the arpeggios
harp
43
The texture is played by two pairs: the flute with clarinet The cello and piano play the scale section, and the clarinet section m. 52–53 with multiple voices with harp. The cello section holds a C single note.
The piano melody is played by the clarinet section. m. 54–end The cello shares the same melody with the cello section.
(TABLE 4: The Adagio for cello and piano, Op. 97bis and the Act II, Scene 36 of Cinderella, Op. 87)
Performance Guide
Publications and the Music Scores of the Adagio
In this section, I will discuss the currently available music resources. Today, there are four publishers and editions available for the cello part and music score: 1) Moscow, 2) Boosey
& Hawkes, 3) Leeds Music Corporation, 4) Sikorski.73 The issue with the different editions is the erring notes. While I was doing the research, and correcting the wrong notes, I referred to the
Cinderella ballet reduction for piano, Op. 87, from Prokofiev’s collected works because the
Adagio from Cinderella, Op. 97 is still missing, and the Adagio, Op. 97bis does not exist in
Prokofiev’s collected works. However, the editor’s note in the Prokofiev’s collected works, volume 11, states that Op. 97bis is the composer’s own transposition from his ballet Cinderella,
Op. 87. Therefore, the correct notes should be in the Cinderella, Op. 87.
73 Sergey Prokofiev, Zolushka balet, Sobranie sochinenií, vol. 11, 111–19. Ballet in three acts, libretto by N. Volkov, published as Op. 87, composed 1940–48.
The publishers of Prokofiev, Adagio: from Cinderella, for Violoncello and Piano. Op. 97bis,: 1) Moscow: Muzfond, 1945. 2) London: Boosey & Hawkes, 1945. 3) ed. Harold Sheldon, New York: Leeds, 1951. 4) ed. Sheldon, Hamburg: Sikorski; distributed by Hal Leonard, 2013.
44
First, the Moscow edition has a wrong notes in m. 15 on the piano score. The correct note should be A natural (Example A-1) instead of Bb (Example A-2).
Example A-1, wrong note Example A-2, correct note
Another wrong note in Moscow’s edition occurs in the bass line of measure 54 in the piano score. The F in the bass line (Example A-3) should be F# (Example A-4).
Example A-3, wrong note Example A-4, correct note
The three editions: Boosey & Hawkes, Leeds Music Corporation, and Sikorski have the same erring note at m. 31 in the cello part. The first is Gb (Example A-5) and should a G
(Example A-6).
45
Example A-5, wrong note Example A-6, correct note
Three Highlights of the Music that Prokofiev Frequent Use in His Cello Music
1) Compound melody: Different melodic lines play appear at the same time.
Example 10: Prokofiev, Adagio, mm. 52–53
2) Tempo stretch or not: Understand when should slow down, keep the same, or move forward
The last beat of the piano at m. 39 should stretch the tempo. (Example 11).
At m. 43, should not slow down even it is the end of the section, that can use expressive to create the ending feeling (See also Example 11).
46
Example 11: Prokofiev, Adagio, m. 39–43
3) New chord ending: Prokofiev added a different chord in the end of Section B and Section B1.
Section B concludes with a C-major arpeggio and switches from 9/8 to 6/8; Section B1 ends with
C-major diatonic triads and remains in 9/8.
Example 12: Prokofiev, Adagio, m. 21 & 51
51
47
Cello Music with Suggested Fingerings
The following examples are the suggested fingerings for the cello part.
Example 13: Adagio, mm. 1–6
Example 14: Adagio, mm. 20–21
Example 15: Adagio, mm. 29–30
Example 16: Adagio, mm. 40–41
48
Chapter Four
Sonata for Cello and Piano in C major, Op. 119
The Sonata demonstrates Prokofiev’s assertive compositional ideas through all three movements. Each movement has its own character and themes. Even though the movements are distinctive, there are rhythmic motives connecting each other. Some of the elements in the
Sonata recall his own Ballade. In addition, the Sonata does not follow a traditional sonata structure, nor the tonality. The structure in each movement will be explained in the “Musical
Analysis and Performance Practice.” The uniqueness of the Sonata lies in its derivation from tradition, its balance of familiarity with innovation, which is Prokofiev’s quintessential character.
The compositional background relates to the musical motives. Both the stories and music of
Prokofiev’s Cello Sonata are appealing. It serves an important role in his life and cello repertory.
Historical Background of the Sonata “I want to write a sonata for you”—Prokofiev
Prokofiev’s motivation to compose the Sonata for Cello and Piano in C major, Op. 119 can be traced back to two of Rostropovich’s recitals. In an evening, Rostropovich performed
Prokofiev’s Cello Concerto, Op. 58 with piano reduction, and he knew that his admire composer would come to the event. Thus, he wanted to impress the composer and get to know him. Indeed, the composer was impressed and congratulated him. Rostropovich recalled a conversation with
Prokofiev after the performance: “You know, I’d like to make some changes in the concerto.
Although there is come very good material in the piece, the structure is not compact enough. If
49
you would be willing to help me I’d be most grateful,” Prokofiev said. “Of course, I’m ready to serve for eternity…any time of day or night,” Rostropovich replied.74 The performance built their relationship, and the conversation began their collaboration and Prokofiev’s new compositional phase.75 Not for too long, after the concerto, the Central Committee of the
Communist Party, decreed against formalism and anti-Soviet composers.76 Prokofiev was one of many high-profile victims since his music revealed modernism and had sometimes been defined as formalist.77
Andrey Zhdanov, a leader of Soviet officialdom, promulgated the “Resolution on Music” on 10 February 1948. He began by accusing a minor composer, but then condemned the Soviet
Union’s important composers: Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Myaskovsky, Shebalin and Aram
Khatchaturian.78 Many composers suffered. Despite the political action, Prokofiev retained some of his compositional techniques, and he was not too concerned about it at first. Rostropovich recalled an anecdote at a gathering of the Central Committee on 10 January 1948,
When Zhdanov launched into his angry speech against composers at the [Central Committee], Prokofiev was in the auditorium. A funereal silence reigned, but he was chatting with his neighbor, the future conductor of War and Peace. From two seats away a member of the Politburo turned to him: “Listen. This concerns you.” “Who are you?” asked Prokofiev. “My name isn't relevant. But know this: when I tell you something
74 Wilson, Rostropovich: The Musical Life of the Great Cellist, Teacher, and Legend, 67.
75 The date is still controversial. In Wilson’s book, Rostropovich gives the date as 18 January 1948. However, in Morrison’s journal, “Rostropovich’s Recollections,” he asserts, the date was 21 December 1947.
76 Formalism describes the interest in music for itself or in modernist styles. Donald Jay Grout, James Peter Burkholder, and Claude V. Palisca, A History of Western Music, 7th ed. (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2006), 876.
77 Miranda Wilson, “How Rostropovich Inspired One of Prokofiev’s Last Great Works,” Strings; San Anselmo, November 2013, 32.
78 Wilson, Rostropovich, 68.
50
you'd better pay heed.” “I never pay attention to comments from people who have not been introduced to me,” Prokofiev threw back, unfazed.79 After the “Resolution on Music,” Prokofiev did not continue the concerto project.
Fortunately, Rostropovich’s performance was before the Decree; otherwise, it could have led to the severest consequences.80 The Concerto, especially, was recognized as “extreme” formalism by Khrenniov between April 19 and 25.81 After gatherings of the Central
Committee and the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Composers, Rostropovich was commissioned in December 1948 by Myaskovsky, the first victim of the Decree to collaborate with Rostropovich, to perform his second cello sonata. Rostropovich accepted the invitation because he always admired the composers. He stated, “They were my idols, and I knew that I would never betray them, although at that time it was very fashionable for young musicians to shout criticism from the tribune, and to denounce their teachers.”82 At the premiere of Myaskovsky’s cello sonata, Prokofiev attended the concert with the composer. After the performance, Prokofiev congratulated Rostropovich and made some comments on the performance. He also declared that “I too want to write a sonata for you.”83
As soon as Prokofiev’s new cello sonata was completed, he invited Rostropovich and
Levon Atovmyan to his dacha at Nikolina Gora. It was an unforgettable moment for the twenty-year-old Rostropovich’s first visit: “I had prepared the Sonata so well and had learned the piano part from memory.” Rostropovich also recalled, “By now Prokofiev no
79 Morrison, The People’s Artist, 267–57. A quote from: Mstislav Leopol'dovich Rostropovich, “Iz vospominaniy,” in Sergey Prokof'yev 1891–1991: Dnevnik, pis'ma, besedï, vospominaniya. Ironically, War and Peace, Op. 91 was banned since then, because it was recognized as formalism, by Khrenniov.
80 Wilson, Rostropovich, 68.
81 See the event detail on page 10 of this document. [Morrison, The People’s Artist, 311–13.]
82 Wilson, 68.
83 Ibid., 69.
51
longer played the piano so well.” At the rehearsal, Rostropovich even went to correct him and yet Prokofiev turned to him: “Young man, who wrote this work, you or me?” At the meeting, Prokofiev also suggested that playing the cello sonata with Sviatoslav Richter, who conducted the premiere of Prokofiev’s Sinfonia Concertante. Rostropovich enjoyed the duo partnership and named as “Teofilovich.”84
The sensitive Rostropovich knew Prokofiev needed money and ill at this time, and decided to play the new cello sonata for acquiring the publication to the committee responsible.
Rostropovich remembered the time of playing the Sonata for the Aleksandr Anisimov, the official responsible, for the publication decision. Anisimov had been director of the Bolshoy
(Bolshoi) Theatre during the mid-1940s and had excluded Prokofiev’s works from the theatre’s repertoire immediately after the 1948 decree. Before Anisimov, Boris Gusman, one of
Prokofiev’s sponsors, was the director. Despite Anisimo’s opposition of Prokofiev, he allocated
Prokofiev’s cello sonata into the “B category” of Class I, which meant less money for composer.
However, the most important things the Sonata passed for publication.
Prokofiev’s Sonata for Cello and Piano in C major, Op. 119 was first performed by
“Teofilovich”—Rostropovich and Richter—at a closed concert at the Plenum of the Union of the
Soviet Composers on 6 December 1949. The official public premiere was given at the Small Hall of the Conservatory on 1 March 1950. 85 Prokofiev, however, was too ill to be at the public premiere concert and required hospitalization.86 The Sonata was well-received, Miaskovsky
84 Wilson, 69. “Teofilovich,” Teofil is Richter’s father first name and Richter’s middle name. In Russia, the full name includes a person’s father’s first name as middle name. In this case, Richter’s full name will be Sviatolav Teofil Ruchter. Therefore, “Teofilovich” combines Richter’s middle name and Rostropovich’s last name. Explained by Ilya Finkelshteyn.
85 Wilson, 69–70.
86 Morrison, The People’s Artist, 344.
52
commented in his diary, “Yesterday Rostropovich and Richter gave a public performance of
Prokofiev’s Cello Sonata—an amazing, first-class work.”87 With the accomplishment of the
Sonata, Prokofiev regained interest in the cello composition and found himself motivated afresh by the creative influence of the young cellist, Rostropovich.88 He invited Rostropovich to help him revise his cello concerto shortly after the premiere of the Sonata.89 Although Prokofiev’s health was declining, he still reworked and composed three other cello works in two years.
This cello sonata was Prokofiev and Rostropovich’s first collaboration. Rostropovich extended performing techniques in the Sonata. Still, it displays the composer’s creativity in this work, through its sensitivity, expressive timbre, and restless musical phrases weaving between piano and cello. The musical concepts in the Sonata are more developed than his juvenilia,
Ballade. In the Sonata, the piano both leads and supports the cello, in contrast to the Ballade, where the piano is often an accompaniment and plays mostly the percussive chord progression.
The grandiose eloquence of the Sonata opens with the pride theme in the first movement.
Prokofiev once wrote on his manuscript, “Man! The word has such a proud ring! (chelovek-eto zvuchit gordo)” the Gorky quotation.90 Despite the Sonata was composed during the decree,
Prokofiev shows the brilliant composition, like the use of the coda to summarize the entire cycle of the three movements.
87 I. V. Nestʹev, Prokofiev, trans. Florence Jonas, 418.
88 Miranda Wilson, “How Rostropovich Inspired One of Prokofiev’s Last Great Works,” Strings 28, no. 4 (11 2013): 31.
89 Wilson, Rostropovich, 71.
90 A letter from Atovmyan to Prokofiev to inquire whether Prokofiev wanted to insert the quote in the cello sonata’s publication. Simon Alexander Morrison, ed., Sergey Prokofiev and His World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 251. * A different translation, “Man—The word resonates with pride.” in Wilson’s book the quote is translated. [Wilson, Rostropovich, 246.]
53
Musical Analysis and Performance Guide
Structure of the First Movement
The first movement begins with a gloomy melody and elicits a somber emotion. It can be divided into three sections—mm. 1–98, mm. 99–135, and m. 136–end. Each section shares four rhythms. The rhythmic characteristics also function as the motives in the Sonata. Rhythm 4 serves an important role; it is not only a connection between phrases in the first movement, but also appears throughout the entire sonata. In addition, in the first movement, the phrases start with a pickup and a dotted rhythm as the featured rhythm. (Table 5, featured rhythm).
TABLE 5: Rhythmic Motives of Prokofiev’s Sonata:
Rhythm 1 o ‘j § ‘n n n
Rhythm 2 j N y ‘o o o
Rhythm 3 ym ‘ym ‘ym ‘y n
Rhythm 4 n q
1 o q
Featured Rhythm 2 j É
3 j N
54
Performance Guide
In the performance guide, there will be important information explained by each section. What follows is the musical analysis shown in a table. The table shows the measure numbers, phrases, motives, and performance practice. The suggestions on performance practice, the Note, follows the table.
Movement I
The introduction of the Sonata is reminiscent of the Ballade. The two pieces begin with a slow introduction, ending with a whole note that connects to the next section. Prokofiev instructs piena voce in both pieces at the beginning to deliver the passage with full sound. Piena voce is not commonly found in cello works as it is derived from vocal or organ works.
Section 1, Movt I, mm. 1–98:
The first movement creates a somber emotion at the beginning in Theme I. It then turns into a deeper and darker feeling through a sequence of eighth notes and an unrelated key. The dark melody is followed by a colorful and sweet melody, Theme II (m. 33). After a silent transition, a new motive comes in, Theme III (m. 71).
55
TABLE 6: Prokofiev, the Sonata, Movt. I, Section 1 of the Sonata, mm. 1–98
Andante grave ♩= 54 Measure 1–20 21–32 32–55 Number Phrases Theme I Theme II Motives Rhythm 1 Rhythm 1 & 4 Rhythm 2 Performace § Cello begins an § Piano solo begins Rhythm 1 § Piano plays a pick-up note, Practice unaccompanied solo at m. 21 and m. 31. to m. 33, Theme II. leading Theme I. § The melody in Piano by Cello. presents the features of the § m. 41: Piano takes over rhythms. (Example A) Theme II. ü Note 1: § m. 49: Both Cello and “piena voce” ü Note 3: pizzicato Piano play Theme II ü Note 2: playing the (m.21–26) together. “piena voce” ü Note 4: Rhythm 4
Andante grave Moderato animato @ ♩= 100 56–70 71–98 80–98 Theme II Theme III Rhythm 4 & 2 Rhythm 3 Rhythm 1 & 3 § mm. 56–58: Rhythm 4 ü Cello begins an § Cello plays modified reappears as a transition. unaccompanied solo Theme I from the third beat § m. 62: A conversation-like Theme III. of m. 80 and Piano melody between Piano and ü Piano responds to Theme accompanies with Cello III in mm. 71–78 and an continuous eighth notes. § Between Theme II and III, the unaccompanied solo in § A poco rit at m. 98 leads to first pause, fermata, separates mm. 90–98. the second section Andante the themes distinctly. # ü Note 5: Pizzicato (mm.66–67)
NOTES: ü 1. “Piena voce,” as stated before, is a unique term, derived from vocal works. Prokofiev did not specify a dynamic for cello, yet in the piano, he wrote p. at m. 3. In addition, at m. 8, poco cresc. and at m. 10 mf are suggested. Therefore, the player should consider the dynamic and character as related to piena voce.
56
ü 2. To create a good piena voce sound, the player should find the right contact point and bow speed. Also, piena voce is not a term for dynamics, but the sound quality.
ü 3. Mm. 21–26: Pizzicato here should sound like a chord instead of a strumming. It is played in different ways: 1) with the thumb vertical to the fingerboard, playing closer to the end of the fingerboard with a fast motion; 2) with both the thumb and middle fingers plucking, each finger controlling two notes. Remember, the point here is to play the chord to sound like one rather than strumming.
ü 4. Rhythm 4 occurs for the first time in the piano, and it creates a mysterious feeling at m. 21 and m. 31. The rhythmic motif is also shared with the second movement with a lighter character.
ü 5. Mm. 66–67 pizzicato: The dynamic is p in both instruments. However, the cello should play a little more, like mf; otherwise, it will be buried. It is a gentle pizzicato which is different from the pizzicato in mm. 12–26 or mm. 208–11.
Section 2, Movt. I,
Section 2 is the shortest section, yet it has more interactions between the cello and piano, such as mm. 115–18 and mm. 124–27. The rhythmic motives appear in fragments as a featured rhythm (Example A). Then, there is a bold silence in the third beat of m. 135. The pause creates a mysterious atmosphere. It also functions as a transition from $ to # and a connection between two sections.
Section 3, Movt. I,
Section 3 is a recapitulation of Section 1. It is not a traditional recapitulation; it has been changed in other ways. New materials are used here, like modified rhythms, natural harmonics in the coda, and additional cello performance skills not found in Sections 1 or 2). Altough the differences, it shares the themes of Sections 1 and 2. The dotted rhythm in the end recalls the beginning of the first movement.
57
TABLE 7: Prokofiev, the Sonata, Movt. I, Section 2, mm.99–135 and Section 3, mm. 135–end
Andante Andante grave, come prima Section 2: 99–135 Section 3: 135–166 166–185 Theme II Theme I Theme II Rhythm 1, 2, 4 Rhythm 1 Rhythm 2 & 4 § Piano begins with a grouping- § Piano leads Theme I and cello § Piano begins the notes, like cimbalom, creating a echoes it from mm. 136–41. Cello modulated Theme II dramatic transition. them takes over Theme I from piano at m. 166. § mm. 127–35: a new melody. at m. 141. § Be aware of the § m. 127: The quarter rest is a silent § mm. 159–66: To contrast, cello rapid dynamic transition for the new melody. leads a melody and piano responds changes. § Between Section 2 and 3, a bold to it. pause appears the second time, § mm. 164–66: C Major scale, an fermata. important hint, which settles the key afterwards. ü Note 6: Piano ü Note 7: The effect ü Note 8: m. 158
Section 3, cont.
Allegro moderate Meno mosso Più mosso 186–202 203–214 215–230 231–end
Theme III Coda Rhythm 3 Rhythm 3 § The original Theme III is a ü Note 9: Tempo § The loudest and § The very soft four-bar phrase (mm. 71– ü Note 10: pizzicato fastest section in the ending 74). This time, it is an (mm. 208–211) 1st movement. contrasts the eight-bar phrase (mm.186– ü Note 11: The § From the beginning beginning and 93). effect of the grace note. It previous is a modified section. § mm. 195–202: The second shortened Rhythm 3. occurrence of Theme III, piano and cello share the ü Note 12: Dynamics ü Note 14: Coda eight-bar phrase. ü Note 13: Cello
58
NOTES: ü 6. Piano presents a significant change in its musical texture. A sequence of thirty-seconds imitates a folk instrument, known as the cimbalom, from southern and eastern Europe.
ü 7. The effect—cimbalom sound effect—is also shared with the coda of the third movement.
ü 8. m. 158: Cello and piano play different dynamics: cello plays mf and piano plays p.
ü 9. Meno Mosso is indicated here. The tempo will influence the clarity of the cimbalom-like scale. Therefore, players should consider the tempo.
ü 10. mm. 208–211: pizzicato is the same idea as in mm. 21–26.
ü 11. The effect—cimbalom sound effect— now is played in both instruments.
ü 12. Dynamics: Keep the dynamic ff and do not drop the dynamic because f is suggested in the next 8 measures.
ü 13. Cello: The cello player should place the left hand in one position for every two beats.
ü 14. The coda indicates p with the natural harmonic, creating a trio-like wandering effect and a bird-call atmosphere. Remember, the dotted rhythm is the key characteristic and recalls the beginning of the first movement.
59
Structure of the Second Movement
The Second movement is a Scherzo-like movement with three sections: Section A, mm.
1–49; B, mm. 49–93; and A’, mm. 94–end. The quirky expression at the beginning contrasts not only the gray feeling of the first movement, but also the following section, Section B, a heartbreaking melody. Sections A and B have their own developments, recapitulations, and codettas. Section A’ is a recapitulation of Section A. Each section shares the similar rhythmic motives. The motives are developed from the first movement (see Table 8), and some are reference to the Ballade (mm.48–95).
Table 8: Rhythmic Motives, Prokofiev, Sonata, Movt. II
Two Rhythms from the first movement
Rhythm 4 n q n q Featured Rhythms 1 o q 2 j É
Variations in the second movement
Variation A
n q Y ‘Y q e E \ n q Y \ Y q q Variation A1
n q Y ‘Y o eE \ n qy y \y y q q
Variation B
y q y q ’ n m n m
Variation B1 (with triplets)
@
60
Movement II
The rhythmic motives are the main characteristic of the movement and the cello often plays them. Even though the cello often seems an accompaniment, in fact, the cello’s part is important, especially the pizzicato parts, because of the balance with the piano. The movement reminds us of Prokofiev’s compositional style—unexpected accidentals and a sequence of breaking chords—as it ends in a witty way, in contrast to the first and the third movements.
Miranda Wilson describes how “the characteristic chromatic ‘turnarounds’ into new keys seem to add extra expressive power to the long cantabile lines.”91
TABLE 9: Section A, Prokofiev, Sonata, Movt. II, mm. 1–49:
Moderato ♩= 96 Measure 1–12 13–23 24–33 33–40 41–49 number Phrases Development Bridge Recapitulation Codetta
Motives Variation A Variation B & B1 Rhythm 4 Variation A1
Performance ü Note 1: § Piano leads a ü Note 3: § m. 40: balance § m. 48: The Practice The Ballade melody and Bow issue. Cello rhythm here connects to the technique plays louder recalls Rhythm 4 ü Note 2: bridge section. than the from the first Pizzicato dynamic movement. marking (mp)
NOTES (of Section A):
ü 1. The same rhythmic character in the Ballade mm. 48–95: n q (short notes followed by a
long note) and rests. Also, both sections are played with staccato or pizzicato.
91 Wilson, "How Rostropovich Inspired One of Prokofiev's Last Great Works," 32.
61
ü 2. Pizzicato here should sound like a chord instead of a strumming. It is played in different ways: 1) with the thumb vertical to the fingerboard, playing fast and closer to the end of the fingerboard; 2) with the thumb and middle finger, each finger controlling two notes.
ü 3. The bow speed will affect the clarity of the grace notes or staccati. Use approximately 1/4–1/3 of the whole bow from the frog for the first group of grace notes. As the bow reaches to the top staccato note, the bow speed increases (Excerpt: S.II.2). As the eighth-note-rests, place at the middle of the bow for the highest grace note. Remember that the groups of grace notes are legado, so the bow stay on the strings. Also, use a flat hair to play the passages.
Excerpt: S.II.2
Section B, Movt. II, (TABLE 10) In Section B, the cello leads the entire melody, and the piano supports the solo by playing continuous eighth-note lines. Because of the frequent harmonic changes in the development and bridge, it expands the tension in Section B. The melody modulates back and forth from majors to minors makes the heartbreaking moments.
TABLE 10: Section B, Prokofiev, Sonata, Movt. II, mm. 49–93
Andante dolce ♩= 60 49–66 67–77 77–81 81–89 90–93
Exposition Development Bridge Recapitulation Codetta Rhythm motives are from the first movements. (Example. B) Rhythm 4 § The harmonic has § False recapitulation. § Exposition in a higher never settled. register.
62
Section A’, Movt. II, (TABLE 11)
A recapitulation of Section A. The witty arrangement at the end echoes the beginning of the second movement.
TABLE 11: Section A’, Prokofiev, Sonata, Movt. II, m. 94–end
Moderato primo
94–99 100–105 105–end
Variation A1 Variation B & B1 Variation A § The recapitulation of § The recapitulation of § The recapitulation of Section A’s beginning Section A’s recap. Section A’s development. ü Note 4: mm. 107–108: Harmonic chromatic line
NOTE:
ü 4. The harmonic chromatic line is like laughter. It also recalls the gestures of m. 28 and 32 (Excerpt: S.II.3). To get a better sound for the artificial harmonics, place the bow closer to the bridge and use 1/2–1/3 of the bow hair. The bow stroke is more similar to sautillé than staccato.
Excerpt: S.II.3
63
Structure of the Third Movement
This movement has the most complex structure of all, not only the motives and its variations, but also in the frequent key changes. Although it can be divided into four major sections, Section A (mm. 1–101), Section B (mm. 102–37), Section A’ (mm. 137–99), and
Section C (m. 199–end), every section contains various themes. Also, each theme has its individual rhythmic motives; when the themes repeat, Prokofiev alters the motives each time.
Sometimes the motives refer to the first or second movements or the Ballade. Miranda Wilson describes the movement as “mischievous pointillist.”92 Indeed, the combinations of the motives and the various chords and harmonies create the abundant color and layers of the piece.
Therefore, because of the complexity of the third movement, the following performance guide will list the motives within the individual sections.
Movement III
The third movement opens with a major key and delightful cello solo melody with staccato piano accompaniment. Section A alternates between three rhythmic motives, four keys, and four themes (Table 12). cThe rhythmic motives are 1 O 2 q n 3 continuous q q q q
92 Wilson, "How Rostropovich Inspired One of Prokofiev's Last Great Works," 32.
64
TABLE 12: Section A, Prokofiev, Sonata, Movt. III, mm. 1–101
Allegro ma non troppo Measure 1–17 18–32 32–59 number Phrases Theme I Theme II Themes III Motives O qn qq/Yqq q q q q Performance § mm. 1–8 is § Eight-bar phrases § Four-bar phrase alternates between Piano Practice Theme I motive. and Cello, but modified as it repeats. ü Note 1: pizzicato ü Note 2: There is a difference between Piano and Cello’s Theme III. (Excerpts)
§ C major § Eb and A Major § Db Major
Allegro, ma non troppo 59–75 75–81 81–101 Theme IV [transition] Theme I q q q q q q q q O § Theme IV is a lyric § Harmonic changes in each § Modified Theme I section even though the measure. motive is the same as Theme III. ü Note 3: tempo at m. 76–80.
§ Db Major § A major § A major and C Major
NOTE of Section A:
ü 1. The pizzicato here, like that in the first movement, should sound like a chord instead of a strumming. It is played in different ways: 1) with the thumb vertical to the fingerboard, playing closer to the end of the fingerboard with a fast motion; 2) with both the thumb and middle fingers plucking, each finger controlling two notes. Remember, the point here is to play the chord to sound like one rather than strumming.
65
ü 2. Theme III: Piano
Theme III: Cello
ü 3. mm. 76–80: The rhythmic values are longer here, creating the perception of ritardando. Hence, the performers should maintain the same tempo and not slow down.
TABLE 13: Section B, Prokofiev, the Sonata, Movt. III, mm. 102–37
Andantino ♩= 92 102–125 125–137 1. a shared motive with the Ballade 1. a shared motive with the Ballade 2. Y 'w 2. Y 'w 3. UT 'dUT § Motive 1: The piano leads a melody and connects § Motive 1: The main melody is legato and in the to a new theme and key change. piano. The cello functions as an accompaniment and plays tremolo throughout the entire section. § Correspond to the Ballade: mm. 199–236 § Because the cello plays tremolo, it makes the piano’s solo sound like it comes from behind a § Motive 2: The motive appears in the piano at m. curtain. 115, 118, 122, and 133. It creates a mysterious § Correspond to the Ballade: mm. 96–103 feeling and it modified in the next section, mm. § Motive 2: in Piano bass line, like a drone. 125–37.
66
Section A’, Movt. III, mm. 137–199
Section A’ is a recapitulation of Section A. Unlike Section A, A’ contains two keys and each theme becomes shorter (See Table 14).
Section C, Movt. III, m. 199–end
Prokofiev added new material in the end of the last movement. One of the compositional techniques is a scale-sequence accompaniment (Excerpt: S.III.196). Another is a sequence of broken chords, arpeggios. (Excerpt: S.III 216). The compositional techniques make the Sonata a
Russian folk tune-like (Also see Table 14).
Excerpt: S.III.196: a scale-sequence accompaniment
Excerpt: S.III.216: a sequence of broken chord
67
TABLE 14: Section A’–Section C, Prokofiev, the Sonata, Movt. III, mm. 137–99 to m. 199–end
Allegro, ma non troppo 137–53 154–61 162–77 177–89 189–93
Theme I Theme II Theme III Theme IV transition O qn qq / Y qq q q q q q q q q qn § A § A recapitulation of § A § A § The motive recapitulation Theme II. recapitulation recapitulation continues and of Theme I of Theme III of Theme IV in the bass line into the § New material in Theme following II, Cello plays y as section. accompaniment.
Poco a poco più tranquillo 194 –199 (mp) 199–end (ff) Motives from the first Movement I, the Ballade, and qn cimbalom-like melody § The scale-sequence weaves between Cello § mm. 216–18: All the quarter notes in the cello part and Piano and the top notes in the piano part become a C major scale. § motive is continued in the bass line. qn (Excerpt: S.III.216) (Excerpt: S.III.196) § m. 219 establishes C Major scale.
ü Note 3: Tempo ü Note 4: Correspond to the Ballade
NOTE:
ü 3. This section continues the previous tempo and connects to a new section. The connection is often an issue between the cello and piano.
ü 4. Correspond to the Ballade: The ending recapitulates the very beginning and modifies the melody. The same technique is used in the Ballade from mm. 239–end.
68
Chapter Five
Cello Concerto, Op. 58 and Sinfonia Concertante, Op. 125
Prokofiev “completed” two cello concertos in his lifetime: Cello Concerto in E minor, Op.
58, in 1934–38, and Sinfonia Concertante, Op. 125, in 1950–52.93 Though the Cello Concerto is the original version of the Sinfonia Concertante, the pieces were received very differently. The two concertos were composed with quite separate historical backgrounds. The Cello Concerto, ironically, was considered a failure, and the orchestral score is unavailable even today.94 The Sinfonia
Concertante was well-received during Prokofiev’s time and is considered one of the more important pieces in the cello repertory. The compositional inspiration of both concertos is also correlated to two important cellists, Gregor Piatigorsky and Mstislav Rostropovich.
In Chapter 5, I provide historical context for the two concertos, and discuss Prokofiev’s compositional stories chronologically in the first section, “Compositional Background and the
Relationship between the Cello Concerto and the Sinfonia Concertante.” The following section is
“Musical Analyses,” where I illustrate the similarities and differences of the two concertos though a discussion of their respective forms, instrumentation and orchestration, key areas in each movement, and Rostropovich’s edits in the Sinfonia Concertante. In the conclusion, I also provide the stories told by the composer’s cellist friends, and they described Prokofiev’s personality. With the stories described by the two cellists, we also learn about Prokofiev’s deeper expression in the music.
93 At the time of his death, Prokofiev was working on a new concerto for cello, Cello Concertino in G Minor, Op. 132. However, his failing health interrupted his composition. The rest of the work was completed by Rostropovich and Kabalevsky in 1956. My research focuses on the completed works by Prokofiev.
94 The publisher Boosey & Hawkes provides an online reading orchestral score, Prokofieff Serge, “Boosey & Hawkes Composers, Classical Music and Jazz Repertoire,” n.d., http://www.boosey.com/cr/perusals/score.cshtml?id=38458.
69
Compositional Background and the Relationship between
the Cello Concerto and the Sinfonia Concertante
More than two decades after his previous contribution to the solo cello repertoire, the
Ballade in 1912, Prokofiev finally resumed his cello solo composition with the Cello Concerto,
Op. 58, in 1933. He did not finish the Concerto until 1938, after he had left Paris and moved to the Soviet Union. Even though many of his compositions during this Soviet period were based on war or political influences, the Cello Concerto is not marked by these considerations. While
Prokofiev sketched the Concerto in his later years in Paris, he was experiencing a career ebb.
The Concerto was also composed in a complicated stage when Prokofiev was trying to define his compositional style and to solve his homesickness; these stories are included in Chapter 1.
Therefore, the music of the Concerto was not influenced by politics; rather it reflects the composer’s self-conflict.
The compositional motivation for the Concerto can be traced back to a distinguished
Russian cellist who was also living in Paris, Gregor Piatigorsky.95 According to Piatigorsky’s book, when he played the Ballade, Op.15, with Prokofiev, he once “urged” Prokofiev to write a cello concerto. Prokofiev replied, “I do not know your crazy instrument.” In order to persuade the composer, Piatigorsky recalled,
I demonstrated all possibilities of the cello. Prokofiev finally considered to write a concerto for cello and said “It is slashing! Play it Again!” and then asked me to show some typical cello music to him. He (Prokofiev) made the notes in the little note book he always carried with him.96
95 Although the stories recorded in Piatigorsky’s book are not all supported by scholarship, some events correspond with other resources, and these will be recorded in this document.
96 Gregor Piatigorsky, Cellist (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), 236–37.
70
Shortly after the meeting, Prokofiev began composing the concerto and asked for advice from
Piatigorsky. However, it took Prokofiev five years to complete the work.
There are a couple of reasons for delaying the completion of the Concerto. Around this period, Prokofiev had been considering relocating to the Soviet Union as he was experiencing a compositional transformation and career decline in Paris. One day, after Prokofiev finished the first two movements of the Cello Concerto, he told Piatigorsky, “I cannot compose away from
Russia. I will go home.”97 Another reason for the concerto’s delay is that Prokofiev got distracted by a collaboration on cinematic works with Sergey Eisenstein. Eisenstein was the eminent director of films with whom Prokofiev produced his first sound cinematic work,
Alexander Nevsky. On 13 July 1938, he wrote a letter to Vera Alpers, who was a classmate and lifelong friend: “Leaving my Cello Concerto unfinished, I threw myself into the composition of the music for Alexander Nevsky.”98
Indeed, Prokofiev put aside the Concerto until his return to the Soviet Union. When
Prokofiev started it again, he noticed the music of the Concerto lacked continuity between the sections. He stated, “After the long interruption, I revised the Concerto, adding some new musical material. The first sketches did not satisfy me. I clearly felt ‘seams’ between the various episodes, and not all the music was of equal value.”99
After editing the Concerto, Prokofiev invited the cellist Lev Berezovsky to play the reduction with Sviatoslav Richter at an audition at the Moscow Union of Composers. Sovietskoye
Iskusstvo, a newspaper, praised the composition even before the public performance with an orchestra. This initial enthusiasm was the reason why the Concerto was put forward for the
97 Ibid., 237.
98 Simon Alexander Morrison, The People’s Artist: Prokofiev’s Soviet Years, 224.
99Literaturnaya gazeta, September 20, 1938, intro. in Izrail V. Nestyev, Prokofiev, trans. Florence Jonas (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1960), 297.
71
performance with an orchestra. On 26 November 1938, the Concerto was premiered by
Berezovsky with an orchestra conducted by A. S. Melik-Pashayev at the second Festival of
Soviet Music in Moscow.100 The first public performance, however, was the beginning of the unfortunate concerto’s difficult path to acceptance.
The work’s negative initial reception was caused by many factors. Some research indicates that Melik-Pashayev underestimated the rehearsal time and the difficulties of the score.
Elizabeth Wilson has also recorded that Berezovsky was not able to master the piece: “At the premiere he played from the music, but even so often drifted apart from the orchestra.” Despite the initial enthusiasm for the work at its premiere, most people considered that the Concerto failed miserably. The best-known Soviet cellist during that time, Sviatoslav Knushevitsky, publicly dismissed the Concerto as one of Prokofiev’s failures.101 Prokofiev received praise only from Sovietskoye Iskusstvo and harsh criticism from all the rest. Izrail Yampolsky wrote, “It lacks the soaring melody, the broad, expressive cantabile quality, which characterizes
Prokofiev’s violin concertos.” Also, his friend Myaskovsky commented, “First-rate music but somehow it doesn’t quite come off.”102 He further claimed, “I had a look at Prokofiev’s Cello
Concerto, the music is good, but the form is not.”103
100 The performance information is quoted from three resources: 1) Elizabeth Wilson, Rostropovich: The Musical Life of the Great Cellist, Teacher, and Legend (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2008), 66. 2) Sergey Prokofiev, Sobranie sochinenií [Collected Works], vol. 20B (Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1967), 5; and 3) Izrail Vladimirovich Nestyev, S. Prokofiev: His Musical Life, trans. Rose Prokofieva (New York, A. A. Knopf, 1946), 137–38.
101 Wilson, Rostropovich, 66.
102 Nestyev, Prokofiev, 297.
103 Alexander Ivashkin, cellist, conductor, writer, festival director: Publication: “Cooling the Volcano: Prokofiev’s Cello Concerto Op. 58 and Symphony-Concerto Op. 125. in Three Oranges, November 2009,” accessed May 30, 2015.
72
Prokofiev did not give up any chance to perform it. After receiving sharp critiques,
Prokofiev made several changes in the score and the cadenza, following the advice of
Myaskovsky.104 Then, Prokofiev sent the score to Piatigorsky, who had now moved to the United
States, and they once again worked together on editing the Concerto. Piatigorsky performed the revision in the U.S. in 1940. Sadly, it still did not achieve popularity. The Concerto was nearly forgotten, but after five years, in December 1945, the same revision was performed by a young cellist, Maurice Gendron, with the London Philharmonic Orchestra under the baton of Walter
Susskind.105 A further revision of the Concerto and a turning point in Prokofiev’s compositional career was made in 1948 by the young Rostropovich.106 Rostropovich recalled a story that he heard from Richter about a backstage conversation after the premiere in which Prokofiev said to
Melik-Pashayev, “Nothing could be worse.” Such a story inspired the young Rostropovich to perform the Cello Concerto.107
Actually, something worse happened in April of 1948—the First All-Union Congress of
Soviet Composers. Prokofiev was condemned by Krennikov as being part of a “narrow circle of aesthete-gourmands.” His Cello Concerto, alone with the Duenna, and the Sixth Piano Sonata, were held up as examples of “extreme” formalism.108 Prokofiev never spoke out against the
Union, but he was nonetheless labeled as an “out-of-touch radical formalist.”109 Like
Shostakovich, Prokofiev’s compositions would be acceptable in other countries; however, during
104 Nestyev, Prokofiev, 298.
105 Wilson, Rostropovich, 67.
106 Redepenning, “Prokofiev, Sergey,” Grove Music Online. The same information is mentioned in Wilson, Rostropovich, 66.
107 Wilson, Rostropovich, 67.
108 Morrison, The People’s Artist, 313.
109 Ibid..
73
this period in the Soviet Union, the arts had to obey the regime. “Realism” was the Soviet rulers’ favored term for art that depicted a perfect future, contained nationalistic content, and demonstrated ideological cohesion.110 During that time, Prokofiev’s reputation fell with the regime. (The struggles of his later year in the Soviet Union were discussed in greater detail in
Chapter 1.) Prokofiev lived with increasing anxiety and strove to fight with his art for a better life.111
The political events of 1948 thus formed the backdrop to Rostropovich’s influential performance of the Concerto. This performance also coincided with Prokofiev’s renewed motivation to write more cello repertory and to revise the Concerto again. (Rostropovich’s influence is also detailed in Chapter 1.) This performance encouraged Prokofiev to sketch the
Cello Sonata, and this work’s success further built up Prokofiev’s confidence in writing more cello works. In addition, Prokofiev and Rostropovich became close friends, and the composer asked for advice from the cellist. An example from one of Rostropovich’s letters to Prokofiev states,
I am going to Ruza to prepare for my upcoming trip to Germany (‘celebration of Bach’s 200th’), but I will be in touch with Moscow the entire time; so if I’m needed to change anything in the cello part I can always come to Moscow.…To avoid completely getting on your nerves, I won’t ask anything about the Cello Concerto, but in my heart, I’m hoping.112
This letter proves that they did not forget about the project, and Rostropovich played an important role in revising the Concerto. According to Rostropovich, Prokofiev immediately composed the Sinfonia Concertante after he premiered the Sonata, Op. 119. When he played the
110 Ibid, 312.
111 Geoffrey Norris and David Nice, Prokofiev, Sergey Sergeyevich, The Oxford Companion to Music. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, accessed on November 1, 2016, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e5375
112 Morrison, The People’s Artist, 343.
74
Sinfonia Concertante, he conceived a plan to compose the Concertino, Op. 132, and before he finished that work, he began to write the Unaccompanied Cello Sonata.113
Prokofiev took two years to realize his revision and another two years to re-work the
Cello Concerto; finally, he turned it into the Sinfonia Concertante of 1950–52. There were a couple of reasons for the delay. First of all, much of Prokofiev’s music was banned from performance, and the Cello Concerto was especially condemned. Therefore, instead of revising it, he wrote a new composition for cello, the Cello Sonata. Secondly, his illness and family issues distracted him. He stayed at his dacha and could not walk. Thus, it was difficult for him to go to a concert. He did not attend many of his composition premiere concerts either. In addition, his ex-wife, Lina, got arrested on political charges. Lastly, Prokofiev needed financial resources.
Therefore, he composed many works in different genres simultaneously, including War and
Peace, an opera that required considerable additional effort to have performed. He often said to
Rostropovich, “I do not want to die until I hear War and Peace again (the final version of the opera)”114 It is a pity that, Prokofiev died without hearing the definitive version of both his opera and the Sinfonia Concertante.
The Sinfonia Concertante was first performed by Rostropovich and conducted by Richter on 18 February 1952 in Moscow. The occasion also happened to be Richter’s first opportunity to conduct a work’s premiere. After the performance, they made changes to the first version.
However, it remained difficult to get authorization to play Prokofiev’s music in public.
Therefore, the final version was performed on 9 December 1954 in Copenhagen with the Danish
113 Samuel, Rostropovich, and Vishnevskaya, Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya, 179.
114 Ibid., 102.
75
Radio Orchestra conducted by T. Gensen.115 Since then, the Sinfonia Concertante has been well- received and more recognized. Yet, Prokofiev did not know how successful the piece was. The
Sinfonia Concertante was also an influential work for Rostropovich. The collaboration between composer and cellist inspired other composers, for example, Dmitri Shostakovich and Dmitri
Kabalevsky.
The impact of the Sinfonia Concertante has been significant. Since its premiere, many important Russian composers have written cello works dedicated to Rostropovich. The composition was specially esteemed by Shostakovich, and his First Cello Concerto (1959) was partially influenced by it.116 Kabalevsky was a deep admirer and helped Rostropovich to complete the orchestration of Prokofiev’s Concertino (1960). Then, Kabalevsky wrote a sonata for Rostropovich and accompanied him at the first performance in 1962.117 “He became a co- author of our new works,” Shostakovich said in praise of Rostropovich.118 In an interview,
Rostropovich agreed that Prokofiev’s Sinfonia Concertante was his first acquaintance with modern music.119
115 Ibid.. The performance information also recorded in the Sergey Prokofiev, Sobranie sochinenií [Collected Works], vol. 20B (Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1967), 5.
116 Rostropovich, Cellist of the Century: The Complete Warner Recordings, vol. Booklet (New York: Warner Classics, 2017), 16.
117 Ibid., 22–24.
118 Ibid.,18.
119 Samuel, Rostropovich, and Vishnevskaya, Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya, 160.
76
Musical Analysis and Performance Guide
In this section, there will be two major topics. The first is an overview of the Cello Concerto and the Sinfonia Concertante through a comparison of forms, instrumentation, and keys. The second topic summarizes the same themes in both concertos and the editing by Rostropovich. What follows is a conclusion of Prokofiev’s solo cello music with his personality as described by his cello friends.
Overview of the Cello Concerto and the Sinfonia Concertante
Both concertos’ feature characteristics that are typical of Prokofiev. Both portray very bright and sparkling characters that make them very attractive and unusual in the cello repertoire.
In addition, both concertos are virtuosic pieces, and with Rostropovich’s adjustments, the
Sinfonia Concertante is more expressive and lyrical and achieved a new simplicity. The Sinfonia
Concertante is like the Sonata in its use of the simplification to express poignant emotions with great originality. Without doubt, the Sinfonia Concertante contrasts with the Cello Concerto, which possesses a clear-cut harmony.120
The two concertos are in three movements, and yet a distinctive difference is in their structures: the Cello Concerto has a short first movement and a long third movement; the
Sinfonia Concertante contains three movements of equal length, and the phrases are more connected. In addition, in certain musical elements, Rostropovich asserted that there are some similarities between the opera War and Peace and the Sinfonia Concertante.121 It is possible
120 Claude Samuel, Prokofiev (London: Calder and Boyars, 1971), 153.
121 Samuel, Rostropovich, and Vishnevskaya, Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya, 102.
77
because the two works were composed at the same time. However, this chapter focuses on a comparison of the two concertos. Table 15 shows the instrumentation, movement schemes, key areas, tempo markings, cadenzas, and quasi-cadenzas for the movements of each concerto.
Table 15: Comparison of the Cello Concerto and the Sinfonia Concertante
Cello Concerto, Op. 58 Sinfonia Concertante, Op. 125 2 Flutes 2 Flutes (2nd doubling piccolo) 2 Oboes 2 Oboes 2 Clarinets in A 2 Clarinets in A 2 Bassoons 2 Bassoons 2 Horns in F 4 Horns in F 2 Trumpets in Bb 2 Trumpets in Bb (3rd ad lib.) Instrumentation 3 Trombones Tuba Tuba Timpani Timpani 2 Percussion (castanets, tambourine, side Percussion (triangle, tambourine, side drum, bass drum, cymbals) drum, bass drum, cymbals) Celeste Strings Strings
Movement I. 6:01 I. 10:10 Lengths II. 12:45 II. 17:00 (minutes) III. 19:31 III. 9:10
I. Andante eighth note = 96 I. Andante eighth note = 96 – Adagio five bars before the end – Adagio seven bars before the end – Attacca
II. Allegro giusto quarter note = 152 II. Allegro giusto quarter note = 132 Movement – Attacca Schemes – Andante 16 * Più Mosso at fifth bar of 34 * Poco più largo at fourth bar of 38
(* is indicated in the cello part, but not
in the piano score) – Allegro assai quarter note =160 43
78
III. Allegro half note = 66 III. Andante con moto half note = 66 – Theme in cello – Vivace 2 – Interludio L’istesso Tempo 54 – Allegretto (poco meno mosso) 15 – Variation I L’istesso Tempo 58 – Allegro marcato 21 – Variation II Vivace 61 – Variation III Andantino Tranquillo 67 – Interludio Tempo I 72 – Variation IV L’istesso Tempo – Reminiscenza in orchestra 82 – Coda 87 (Example 27)
I. E minor I. E minor – F major at fifth bar of 8 – The key of C at fourth bar of 10 – F minor13
– E minor 14
– The key of Eb 15
– B major 16 – The key C 17 – E minor 21
II. C major II. C major – The key of E at fifth bar of 9 – C major 13 – E major 14 – C major at five bars before 15
– D major 24 Key Areas – F# major 26
– E minor at six bars before 28 – A minor 29 – A major at fifth bar of 35 – C major 40
III. C major III. E major – Bb minor 78 – C major at three bars before 4 – The key of C at fourth bar of 79 – E major at fifth bar of 8 – *E minor at fifth bar of 83 – C major 9 – G minor 15 – E major 21 – C major eighth bar of 21 – E major 22 – C major 24 – E major 25
79
– Bb minor 26 – The key of C seventh bar of 27
II. III. Quasi-Cadenza Quasi-Cadenza – The cello’s entrance at the begging – The seventh measure of 63, Var. II – 28
Cadenza Cadenza – The fifth measure of 17 Cadenza – 71 III. Quasi-Cadenza – 28 – two measures of 29 Cadenza – 7
The second movement comparison is from Example 18 to 23. The second movement comparison is from Example 17, and 24 to 25. Examples note The third movement comparison of the Theme and Variations is discussed from Example 25 to 28.
From the table above, we know that the instrumentation in the Sinfonia Concertante is more complex than the Concerto. Also, the orchestration in the Sinfonia Concertante is more balanced and the texture of the accompaniment is better arranged, so that the cello solo parts can be heard. In Rostropovich’s interview, he talked about Prokofiev's Sinfonia Concertante, saying
“He (Prokofiev) made sure that the orchestra isn't playing so that the fast and low notes in the cello part appeared are audible” (Example 17 and 19).122 In addition, the cadenza and quasi- cadenza in the Concerto are less frequent than those in the Sinfonia Concertante. Another difference is that a quasi-cadenza appears at the beginning of the second movement of the latter
(Example 17).
122 Janof, “Conversation with Mstislav Rostropovich.”
80
Example 17: Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Second Movement, mm. 1–8
A performance note for the second movement of the Sinfonia Concertante:
1. There are missing musical terms in the piano score, but they are in the cello part:
§ The fifth measure of 34: Più mosso § The fourth measure of 38: Poco più largo
2. At three measures before the end, it is marked as pizz. in both the piano and cello
parts; however, in many recordings, including Rostropovich’s, it is played arco.
Indeed, the melodic themes in the Concerto are very expressive and touching, and the writing of the solo musical theme carries the character of the cello sound. Thus, Prokofiev transferred the melodic themes from the Concerto into the Sinfonia Concertante. In the following section, I examine the themes and motives of both concertos.
81
The Same or Similar Themes Shared by Prokofiev’s Two Concertos
Example 18: Motives shared by the two concertos in the beginning of their first movements
Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Movt. I, four bars repeating Motive I, mm. 1–4
Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. I, the same Motive I with added chords, mm. 1–9
82
Motive I is also played as pizzicato chords in the Sinfonia Concertante, a distinctive material that is not in the Concerto’s first movement (Example 19). It is also an example of Prokofiev’s well- considered orchestration. He made sure the cello pizz. is clearly heard by using silence in the orchestra.
Example 19: Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. I, sixth bar of 18–19
Example 20: Theme 1 for solo cello from the Movt. I, shared by the two concertos
Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Theme 1, Movt. I, mm. 1–7
Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. I, shared Theme 1, mm. 6–12
83
Example 21: Excerpt from Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Movt. I, Theme 2, mm. 8–16
Example 22: Excerpt from Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. I, Theme 2 variation, 2– 3
Example 23a: The Adagio in Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Adagio (in the end), Movt. I
84
Example 23b: The Adagio in Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante in the end of Movt. I, which shares the same melody with the Concerto and addeds three measures of melody:
85
Example 24: The melodic theme from the Movt. II, shared by the two concertos
Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Movt. II, 22–24
Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. II, excerpt 11–12
In the Cello Concerto the melodic theme appears seven times in the cello and orchestra: 22 24
29 36 46 48, and two bars before 51; in the Sinfonia Concertante times, it appears four times
11 14 25, and 37.
86
In fact, the second movement of the Concerto has another melodic theme near the coda, which becomes the main theme of the third movement of both concertos (Example 25).
Example 25: Melodic Theme (TEMA) in both concertos:
Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Movt. II, three measures before 50:
Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Movt. III, main theme and the beginning:
Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. III, shares the main theme at the beginning:
87
The third movement of the Concerto uses the theme, TEMA, in its variations shown in
Table 15 “Movement Schemes” (see also Example 25). The Sinfonia Concertante adopts not only the TEMA, but also some of the motives in the variations from the Concerto. The examples are as follows:
Example 26: The TEMA (the theme in the Movt. III) shared by the two concertos
Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Movt. III, Variation II:
Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. III, 2, shares the motif:
88
Within Var. II, a cadenza is inserted in both concertos. There are thirty-one measures of cadenza in the Cello Concerto and thirty-three measures in the Sinfonia Concertante. The following example shows the materials and melodies that are shared in both cadenzas.
Example 27: The cadenza in both concertos
Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Movt. III, seven of 63, cadenza
Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. III, 7, cadenza
89
Example 28: The sixteenth-note motif shared by the two concertos’ coda section
Prokofiev, Cello Concerto, Movt. III, Coda, 92, the three motives pattern 1–3, repeated five times in twenty measures:
Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. III, coda, the third bar of 28 –29, takes the first motive from block 1 above (in blue) in the Concerto, outlines more harmonies (in green), and adds harmonic double stops (in gray):
90
The endings of the two concertos are a very different. The Concerto ends on an E major chord within the context of E minor. The orchestra carries a prominent role to the ending, and the accompaniment often doubles the solo cello’s melody. The Sinfonia Concertante ends on a unison E in the key of C, and the solo cello has the melody while the orchestra functions as a harmonic background. See Example 29a and 29b.
Example 29a: The ending of Prokofiev’s Cello Concerto, Movt. III
91
Example 29b: The ending of Prokofiev’s Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. III
92
Alexander Ivashkin writes of The Concerto that it is “rather chamber, compared with the monumental character of the Sinfonia Concertante.”123 I disagree with this critic. Even compared to the Sinfonia Concertante, the Concerto still has its great moments. That is the reason that
Prokofiev took some of the melodic themes and motives from the Concerto into the Sinfonia
Concertante. I would also take issue with Simon Alexander Morrison’s statement that “the
Sinfonia Concertante does not require extended techniques, but it thoroughly tests the cellist's mental and physical stamina, emphasizing high-volume sound production, fingerboard precision
(shifts and leaps, chromatic runs, and double stops), sustained phrasing, and rapidly shifting timbres. Muscular exertion is transformed into an expressive device.”124 Actually, the Sinfonia
Concertante does require extended techniques: There are moments that require advanced technique to play, such as playing a higher register with fast scalar patterns, alternating pizz. and arco. in each measure, and double-stop scales. The skills that Morrison listed, in fact, are some examples of demanding techniques. Therefore, the Sinfonia Concertante is considered one of the virtuosic cello concertos and included in international competitions.
123 Alexander Ivashkin, “Cooling the Volcano: Prokofiev’s Cello Concerto Op. 58 and Symphony-Concerto Op. 125,” Alexander Ivashkin, cellist, conductor, writer, festival director, accessed May 30, 2015. http://www.alexanderivashkin.com/08publications_three_oranges2009_prokofiev.html#02.
124 Morrison, The People’s Artist, 378.
93
Rostropovich’s advice on the Sinfonia Concertante
Prokofiev and Rostropovich extended the capacity of the cello and piano through the use of a wider register range in the Cello Concerto. Many people thought that Rostropovich wrote a significant part of the cadenza for the Sinfonia Concertante because the two concertos are very different. However, in an interview, Rostropovich declared that he wrote “much less than the rumors would suggest.”125 He also pointed out the section where he wrote the cello solo. That is
20 in the first movement of the Sinfonia Concertante. See Example 30.
Example 30: Rostropovich’s composition, Prokofiev, Sinfonia Concertante, Movt. I, 20
125 Janof, “Conversation with Mstislav Rostropovich.”
94
According to Rostropovich, Prokofiev changed maybe ten notes and thanked him. It was an unforgettable moment for Rostropovich, who said, “As I walked down the stairwell from his apartment, he shouted behind me, ‘Nice eight bars!’ It was rare to receive compliments from
Prokofiev so that was a great day for me.”126
Actually, Prokofiev also praised Rostropovich in his diary for “very good advice concerning concerto performance and the general plan (of the Sinfonia Concertante),”127 and he dedicated the Sinfonia Concertante to Rostropovich. Unfortunately, he never heard the final version of the work played with orchestra because the Soviet government did not allow his music to be performed in public. Rostropovich premiered it in Copenhagen in 1953.
126 Janof.
127 Morrison, The People’s Artist, 380.
95
Conclusion
From the Composer’s Personality to His Music
“Can an artist possibly stand aloof from life?” Prokofiev wrote in his diary in 1951, the last few years in his life.128 As in his younger days as a student at St. Petersburg, he had described himself was aloof from his classmates and content about it. However, in his last few years of life, he was confused about this detachment. The two cellist who were worked closely with him described the composer’s personality in their books and interviews as presenting a similar expression to his music. As Prokofiev’s friend Vera Dukhovskyaya said at the Sinfonia
Concertante premiere, “The music, like its creator, seemed uncharacteristically morose.”129
Prokofiev’s acquaintances agree that his personality was reflected in his music—and that this personality could be difficult at times. Piatigorsky once said, “Through some ‘unfortunate circumstances’ a few times, I happened to be his partner.”130 At first, Piatigorsky considered his relationship with Prokofiev to be tough because of Prokofiev’s straightforward personality. He also remembered how Prokofiev once glanced at his cello and said, “You should not keep it in the house. It smells.” Or, even more mockingly, “Should I let the cripple play his three no trumps?” Eventually, Prokofiev’s personality became an attraction to Piatigorsky. He recalled,
“It led to a clash that ended with an affectionate embrace.”131 Further, they began a friendship that led to Piatigorsky’s collaboration on the Cello Concerto.
128 Nestyev, Prokofiev, 407.
129 Morrison, The People’s Artist, 379.
130 Piatigorsky, Cellist, 237.
131 Ibid..
96
When Miaskovsky brought Prokofiev to Rostropovich’s 1949 recital to hear the premiere of Miaskovsky's cello sonata, Prokofiev later said to the cellist, "I shall now start writing a cello sonata for you." After that, Rostropovich learned both parts of the Sonata before they met. When they first played it together, Rostropovich kept correcting Prokofiev, "I think that F natural should be an F#.... The chord isn't C, E-flat, G; it's C, E natural, G#...." Prokofiev finally said,
"Who wrote this, me or you?"
In addition, when Rostropovich was asked to write the Sinfonia Concertante solo cello part, he kept putting it off and coming up with excuses. One day, Prokofiev blew up at him and said, "You don't have the talent of Brahms! Brahms wrote tons of piano etudes in addition to his other works and you can't even write eight bars!" This approach worked on Rostropovich and motivated him to finish it.132 Later, Rostropovich also managed to the public performance of the
Sinfonia Concertante and finished the Cello Concertino. There are more stories in Piatigorsky’s and Rostropovich’s books.
The stories show that Prokofiev was a frank and sincere person; he said and did what he had in mind. He also admired others’ talents and had inventive ideas. At the same time, he also had his sense of humor. Prokofiev’s music reflects his life and personality and vice versa.133
With these stories in mind, performers can interpret the music closer to the composer’s wit and expression.
132 Janof, “Conversation with Mstislav Rostropovich.”
133 The observation is also noted in Wilson, Rostropovich, 72: "Rostropovich saw how much Prokofiev's music reflected his personality."
97
Bibliography
Abraham, Gerald. The New Grove Russian Masters 2: Rimsky-Korsakov, Skryabin, Rakhmaninov, Prokofiev, Shostakovich. Composer Biography Series. New York: W. W. Norton, 1986.
Alexander IVASHKIN, Cellist, Conductor, Writer, Festival Director: Publications: Cooling the Volcano: Prokofiev’s Cello Concerto Op. 58 and ‘Symphony-Concerto’ Op. 125. in Three Oranges, November 2009.” http://www.alexanderivashkin.com/08publications_three_oranges2009_prokofiev.html#0 2.
Fanning, David. “Richter [Rikhter], Sviatoslav.” Accessed November 7, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.23408.
———. “Shostakovich: ‘The Present-Day Master of the C Major Key.’” Acta Musicologica 73, no. 2 (2001): 101–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/932894.
Gutman, David. prokofiev. London: Alderman, 1987.
Goodwin, Noël. “Rostropovich, Mstislav.” Grove Music Online, November 26, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2258083.
Grout, Donald Jay, James Peter Burkholder, and Claude V. Palisca. A History of Western Music. 7th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2006.
Janof, Tim. “Conversation with Mstislav Rostropovich.” Accessed November 19, 2018. http://www.cello.org/Newsletter/Articles/rostropovich/rostropovich.htm.
Maes, Francis. A History of Russian Music: From Kamarinskaya to Babi Yar. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Moisson-Franckhauser, Suzanne. Serge Prokofiev et les courants esthétiques de son temps: 1891-1953. Langues et civilisations. Paris (4, rue de Lille, 75007): Publications orientalistes de France, 1974.
Morrison, Simon. “Rostropovich’s Recollections.” Oxford Universiyt Press, Music & Letters 91, no. 1 (February 2010): 83–90.
Morrison, Simon Alexander, ed. Sergey Prokofiev and His World. Princeton Paperbacks. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
———. The People’s Artist: Prokofiev’s Soviet Years. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/ebooks/ebc/9780195181678.
98
Nestyev, Izrail Vladimirovich. Prokofiev. Translated by Florence Jonas. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1960.
Nestyev, Izrail Vladimirovich, and Roza Prokofieva. Sergei Prokofiev: His Musical Life. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1946.
Norris, Geoffrey, and David Nice. “Prokofiev, Sergey Sergeyevich.” In The Oxford Companion to Music. Oxford University Press, 2011. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199579037.001.0001/acref- 9780199579037-e-5375.
Piatigorsky, Gregor. Cellist. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965.
Prokofieff, Serge. “Boosey & Hawkes Composers, Classical Music and Jazz Repertoire,” n.d. http://www.boosey.com/cr/perusals/score.cshtml?id=38458.
Prokofiev, Sergey, and Oleg Prokofiev. Soviet Diary 1927 and Other Writings. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press, 1992.
Prokofiev, Sergey, and Phillips, Anthony. Sergey Prokofiev Diaries 1907–1914: Prodigious Youth. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2006.
Prokofiev, Sergey. Prokofiev by Prokofiev: A Composer's Memoir. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979.
———. Sobranie Sochinenií [Collected Works]. Vol. 11. Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1959.
———. Sobranie Sochinenií [Collected Works]. Vol. 18. Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1966.
———. Sobranie Sochinenií [Collected Works]. Vol. 19B. Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1967.
———. Sobranie Sochinenií [Collected Works]. Vol. 20B. Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1967.
Redepenning, Dorothea. “Prokofiev, Sergey.” Grove Music Online. 2001. Accessed November 5, 2018. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo- 9781561592630-e-0000022402.
Robinson, Harlow. Sergei Prokofiev: A Biography. New York, N.Y., USA: Viking, 1987.
Rostropovich, Cellist of the Century: The Complete Warner Recordings. Vol. Booklet. New York, New York: Warner Classics, 2017.
Samuel, Claude. Prokofiev. London: Calder and Boyars, 1971.
99
———. Prokofiev. Translated by Miriam John. New York: Marion Boyars, 2000.
Samuel, Claude, Mstislav Rostropovich, and Galina Vishnevskaya. Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya: Russia, Music, and Liberty. Translated by E. Thomas Glaso. Portland, OR: Amadeus Press, 1995.
Savkina, Natalia P. Prokofiev, His Life and Times. Translated by Catherine Young. Neptune City, N.J: Paganiniana Publications, 1984.
Schwarz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia. Enl. ed., 1917–1981. Bloomington: indiana University Press, 1983.
Slonimsky, Nicolas and Electra Yourke.The Listener's Companion: The Great Composers and their Works. New York: Schirmer Trade Books, 2002.
Streller, Friedbert. Sergej Prokofjew. Vol. 18. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1960.
Taruskin, Richard. “Betrothal in a Monastery.” Grove Music Online. Accessed November 8, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O006765.
———. On Russian Music. Ahmanson Foundation Humanities Endowment Fund Imprint. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.
———. "Tradition and Authority." Early Music 20, no. 2 (1992): 311-25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3127887.
Wilson, Elizabeth. Rostropovich: The Musical Life of the Great Cellist, Teacher, and Legend. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2008.
Wilson, Miranda. “How Rostropovich Inspired One of Prokofiev’s Last Great Works.” Strings 28, No. 4, November 2013.
Music Score
Prokofiev, Sergey. Ballade for Violoncello and Piano, Op. 15. Master String Series. Boca Raton, Fla: Masters Music, 1993.
———. Ballade: Für Violoncello Und Klavier, Op.15. Leipzig: Edition Peters, 1977.
———. Ballade: Cello and Piano, Op.15. Edited by F. H. Schneider. [place of publication not identified]: Boosey & Hawkes, 1947.
100
———. Concerto Pour Violoncelle En Mi Mineur: Op. 58. London; New York: Boosey & Hawkes, 1954.
———. Adagio Aus Cinderella: Für Violoncello Und Klavier, Op. 97a. Edited by Harold Sheldon. Hamburg : [Milwaukee, Wis.]: Sikorski ; distributed by Hal Leonard, 2013.
———. Adagio: From Cinderella, for Violoncello and Piano. Op. 97bis. [Edited with Special Annotations]. Edited by Harold Sheldon. New York: Leeds, 1951.
———. Sonata in C Major for Cello and Piano, Op. 119. Kalmus Solo Series, no. 4441. Melville, N.Y: Belwin-Mills, 197AD.
———. Sonate Für Violoncello Und Klavier, Op. 119. Edited by Mstislav Rostropovich. Revidierte Neuaufl. 2001. Sikmuz. Hamburg: New York: H. Sikorski ; G. Schirmer, for U.S.A., Canada, and Mexico, 2001.
———. Sonata in C Major for Cello and Piano, Op. 119. Edited by Mstislav Rostropovich. New York: International Music Co., 1958.
———. Sonata for Violoncello and Piano, Op. 119. Annotated by Raya Garbousova. New York: Leeds Music Corp, 1953.
———. Symphony-Concerto, Op. 125 for Cello and Orchestra. Sankt-Peterburg: Izd-vo “Kompozitor,” 2010.
Prokofiev, Sergey and Rostropovich, Mstislav. Sinfonia Concertante Op. 125, Cello and Piano. London: Boosey & Hawkes, 1966.
———. Ten Pieces from the Ballet “Cinderella”: For Piano, Op. 97. Edited by Erno Balogh. Am-Rus ed. New York: Leeds Music Corp, 1947.
———. Two Pieces: Ballade, Op. 15; Sonata in C Major, Op. 119: For Cello and Piano. Kalmus Classic Edition, K 05027. Miami, Fla: Kalmus ; Warner Bros. Publications, 2001.
———. Zolushka Balet [Cinderella Ballet], Sobranie Sochinenií [Collected Works]. Vol. 11. Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1959.
———. Sobranie Sochinenií [Collected Works]. Vol. 18. Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1966.
———. Sobranie Sochinenií [Collected Works]. Vol. 19B. Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1967.
———. Sobranie Sochinenií [Collected Works]. Vol. 20B. Moscow: Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1967.
101