PROKOFIEV AND HIS MASTERPIECE
by Dr David C F Wright (1976)
(To Humphrey Searle on his 60th birthday)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I had to say who was my favourite Russian composer,
I would have great difficulty.
It certainly would not be Tschaikovsky. His music has
serious flaws and is really grand light music although some of his music
is very fine such as the Fantasy Overture: Hamlet and the String Quartet
no. 3 in E flat minor. Rimsky-Korsakov is a far better composer. I enjoy
Stravinsky because of his inventiveness and some of his works are masterpieces.
I have always admired the symphonies of Glazunov and there is no doubt
that Shostakovich is a great composer but much of his music seems to
be padding, time-spinning and both inactive and uninspired. Yet no one
could dispute the magnificence of some of his symphonic literature.
Gliere is a composer of talent and skill. Prokofiev is possibly the
most versatile composer although I am troubled at his sardonic humour
at times. The finest Russian composer is Miaskovsky with 27 symphonies,
nine string quartets and many other works to his name. Unlike Havergal
Brian and Henry Cowell who both composed many symphonies, all of Miaskovsky's
symphonies are real symphonies.
The word ‘masterpiece’ is used too often. It has two
basic meanings. Firstly a work of flawless technique and originality
which has great communicative effect. Sadly, many works deemed to be
masterpieces are not. The second meaning is that work of a composer
which is considered his finest.
Of course, this raises problems. What is Mozart's masterpiece
(singular)? Or what are Beethoven's masterpieces (plural)?
From the point of view of flawless technique, originality
and stunning communicative skill there is no doubt that Prokofiev's
Symphony no. 6 in E flat minor is his masterpiece.
That greatest of all Russian conductors, Evgeny Mravinsky
said, "I would not change a note of it."
Mravinsky gave the premiere in Leningrad on 11 October
1947. It was received politely but not enthusiastically as was the composer
when he came forward to take a bow. Even today, the famous Symphony
no. 1 in D, the Classical, has many performances to the comparative
few of the Symphony no.6.
The Symphony no. 6 , Op. 111 is considered a war symphony.
It is easily forgotten how Russia suffered at the hands of the Nazis
particularly when you recall that Hitler and Stalin had made a non-aggression
pact shortly before World War Two broke out. While we must remember
the appalling treatment of the Jews by the Nazis we should also bear
in mind the millions of Russians, including women and children, who
suffered and died at the hands of Hitler's evil national socialism.
Prokofiev had spoken of the great victory over the
Germans but spoke also of the wounds that Russians still bore. He spoke
of losing people that were dear and those who had lost their health
and how these things must not be forgotten.
He was worried about many things at the time of the
composition of this work. His health was poor. He had problems in his
personal life and the Stalin purges on music caused him to have doubts
about his work. Prokofiev had had a bad fall which produced head injuries
and he died some five and a half years later of a brain haemorrhage.
Curiously he died 50 minutes before Stalin died. This was 5 March 1953.
The Symphony is a memorial to the dead and a statement
of hope for the living. But it is more than that. It is a protest against
the Communist regime which includes the edict to make music conform
to political ideology. But this hindered artistic freedom. This explains
much of the sarcasm in his music.
Musically the symphony explores emotional depths. Yet
it is not a rag bag of unstructured music that wallows and rambles.
It is a work of feeling devoid of sentimentality. It has been compared
to Shostakovich whose symphonies often seem to be statements and protests.
Maybe that is so but where Prokofiev succeeds over Shostakovich is in
discipline. The music is not allowed to meander or ramble without purpose.
Prokofiev's form remains coherent.
The sound world in this symphony is remarkable. The
previous Symphony no. 5 in B flat, Op. 100 is irresistibly enjoyable.
Written in 1945 it may portray the joy of war's end. But its light-heartedness
does not mean the work is banal. It seems to be a spontaneous outpouring
of relief whereas the Symphony no. 6 is a symphony that counts the cost
of the war dead and those who still remain, the broken and mentally
damaged human beings, the children bereft of parents who, in their innocence,
had no option but to learn to trust no one and to hate. Communism was
a cruel master. War was crueller still. Prokofiev's sound world is now
dark, sharp, tense, melancholy, strident and yet the music retains its
integrity. The percussive element is highlighted by an important piano
part.
The work is in three movements lasting about 45 minutes.
It begins with a short introduction. But its decisive
style sets the scene for all that is to follow. The first theme is in
6/8 and is lyrical. The second theme announced by the oboes is far removed
from the original key and has a feeling of chanting or a lament for
the dead. The music develops into being very powerful and the tender
opening takes on a new guise of tremendous power. The mighty climaxes
are magnificently judged. The orchestration is flawless. There are unforgettable
moments. The music becomes darker again and the resolution of the musical
argument cannot be achieved by a triumphant statement but by a surprising
drift into the major key for the final chord.
The middle movement is an impressive largo. It is unexpected
Prokofiev. Here is a rich chromaticism and anguish. The first theme
is grief-stricken whereas the second theme on the cellos is more relaxed.
There follows an amazing passage of anger. Then comes a section of unashamed
nostalgia which has a passage for horns which literally sings. The opening
material returns but in a different order and the coda ends the movement
in A flat major.
The finale, Vivace, is equally amazing. Prokofiev now
introduces a sort of innocence with foot stamping peasant dances suggested.
Are these the days before the war when the innocent children laughed
and danced with irrepressible smiles on their faces? Clearly, children
are suggested here. Prokofiev always had a regard for the young and
he acknowledged them in music. The twelve short piano pieces Music for
Children Op. 65, the teenage lovers, Romeo and Juliet, in his ten pieces
for piano, Op. 75 and the famous ballet, Op. 64, the Three Children's
Songs, Op. 68, the Ballad of an Unknown Boy, Op. 93, the orchestral
suite Winter Bonfire, Op. 122, which uses a boys choir and, of course,
Cinderella which has a childhood connection.
The symphony continues with incredible wit. There seems
to be a mockery of classical music and the tuba seems to have rules
of his own. This exuberance is trying to conceal something sinister
which is about to reveal itself. The chant of the first movement returns
and the composer marvellously captures a sense of uncertainty. The Vivace
returns with the peasant dancing music but now it has lost its innocence
but sounds somewhat regimental. The symphony ends suddenly on the triumphant
major chord of E flat.
The idea of hope is shown in that each on the three
movements ends in the major key.
Stravinsky did not like the symphony. He said that
nothing justified its dullness. An American journal which dismissed
the Symphony no. 5 as a mere bon-bon referred to the Sixth as an autobiographical
confession. It continued by saying that there is no resisting the passion,
sincerity and drive of large sections of the work.
Prokofiev had a rewarding friendship with Miaskovsky
whose own Symphony no. 6 was in E flat minor. In fact, had it not been
for Miaskovsky we would never have had a Prokofiev.
It must not be taken that Prokofiev only wrote one
fine work. I am not suggesting that. He wrote 11 piano sonatas although
the tenth was unfinished and the eleventh did not materialize. Strangely
they are not played as often as those by Scriabin but Prokofiev's sonatas
are worthy of examination. The Piano Sonata no. 7 in B flat, Op. 83,
given a good performance, is explosive.
In the field of theatre music he wrote splendid opera
and ballets, the latter of which are becoming more popular. War and
Peace, Op. 91 has pages of stunning masterly and the ballet The Stone
Flower, Op. 118, contains some of the loveliest music he ever wrote.
I have always been amused by the seemingly absurd title of his opera
The Love of Three Oranges based on Gozzi's play, but then it is a fairy
tale.
His concertos are also worthy of study. The Piano Concerto
no. 1 in D flat, Op. 10, is nothing short of brilliant and an example
of what has been called Prokofievian sparkle. It is a marvellous piece
of glorious melody and vigorous arm, hand and finger work. The Piano
Concerto no. 2 in G minor, Op. 16 is probably a greater work. One concert
pianist said, "It has everything. It is a real concerto."
The Piano Concerto no. 3 in C, Op. 26, is a curious work infused with
a sarcasm I find troublesome but it has many fine moments. The Piano
Concerto no. 4 in B flat, Op. 53, is for the left hand only, one of
the works written for Wittgenstein who hated it and would not play it.
The Piano Concerto no. 5 in G, Op. 55, completes the cycle.
There are two splendid concertos for the violin Op.
19 and Op. 63 respectively. They are both instantly enjoyable and very
well written.
But the concertante work I most admire is the Sinfonia
Concertante, Op. 125, which is a reworking of the Cello Concerto, Op.
58 which took the years 1933 to 1938 to realise.
It must not be assumed that composers are excellent
at all aspects of music.
Prokofiev has difficulty in writing for the cello.
He was used to writing concertante works where the soloist is higher
in pitch than the orchestra. To write a melody for the cello in the
bass register with the orchestral parts higher in pitch caused him great
problems. It was said that his Cello Concerto was really a violin concerto
with the cello melodically soaring above the orchestra.
The premiere of the Sinfonia Concertante was first
given by two inexperienced performers with the Moscow Youth Orchestra
on 18 February 1952. Rostropovich was the cellist and the pianist Sviatoslav
Richter the conductor. Pianists very rarely made even second class conductors.
I admire the Prokofiev 'bite' in this work and that
he has, at last, triumphed over the difficulties of writing a concerto
for what might be called a bass instrument. It is this spirit that pervades
this work and also his masterpiece although there are diverse issues
at stake!
One of the essential ingredients of any composer is
originality. We can all compose music that is similar to what has gone
before but there needs to be a pioneer spirit. Music does not have to
be the sounds of pots and pans being thrown or a London traffic jam
to make it modern.
Prokofiev proves that point!
Copyright David C F Wright 1976
