Perspectives On The Symbiosis

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date: 23-May-2010
I, Sooyoung Kim ,
hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of:
Doctor of Musical Arts
in Violin
It is entitled:
Perspectives on the Symbiosis of Traditional and Modernist Techniques in
Four Violin Compositions by Sergei Prokofiev
Student Signature: Sooyoung Kim
This work and its defense approved by:

Committee Chair: bruce mcclung, PhD
bruce mcclung, PhD
6/6/2010 774
Perspectives on the Symbiosis of Traditional and Modernist Techniques
in Four Violin Compositions by Sergei Prokofiev
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 the Performance Studies Division

of the College-Conservatory of Music
23 May 2010
by
Sooyoung Kim
M.M., University of Cincinnati, 2003

B.M., Ewha Women’s University, 1999
Committee Chair: bruce d. mcclung, Ph.D.

UMI Number: 3419974
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3419974
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
ABSTRACT
This document examines four violin compositions by Sergei Prokofiev (1891–1953): his Five
Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis (1925), Sonata for Two Violins in C Major, Op. 56
(1932), Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis (1943), and Sonata for Solo
Violin, Op. 115 (1947). Although each work features unique attributes and distinctive timbral
qualities, this study demonstrates that these four violin compositions share the underlying
concept of stylistic symbiosis, precisely the blending of traditional and modernist techniques.
From this perspective, a comparative study of these four violin compositions contributes to our
understanding of how Prokofiev’s neo-classical approach to composition—so pronounced in his
large-scale works—operates in the intimate arena of his chamber music.
ii
Copyright © 2010 by Sooyoung Kim
All Rights Reserved
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document would not have been possible without the guidance of significant
professors and mentors. I would like to express my deepest and most sincere gratitude to my
Committee Chair, Dr. bruce mcclung, for his endless effort and pertinent criticism, as well as
Committee members and violin professors Drs. Won-bin Yim and Piotr Milewski for their
expertise and encouragements over the last ten years. This study is the culmination of research
that started in 2007. It also represents the continuation and expansion of a lecture-recital given on
12 March 2009 on the same topic—i.e., Prokofiev’s synthesis of traditional and modernist
features—which included the performance of only Prokofiev’s Violin Sonata No. 2 in D Major,
Op. 94bis (1943), due to time constraints.
I dedicate this document to my parents and my husband, life-long supporters, for their
unconditional love.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………………... iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES …………………………………………………….. vi
LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES ……………………………………………………… vii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………... 1
1. Sergei Prokofiev and the Neo-classical Current ……………………………… 1
2. Prokofiev’s Opp. 35bis, 56, 94bis, and 115: Background and Genesis ………. 4
II. THE WEIGH OF THE PAST ……………………………………………………….... 11
1. Prokofiev’s Quest for a “New Simplicity” …………………………………… 11
2. Neo-classical Syntax, Texture, and Formal Designs …………………………. 17
III. LOOKING FORWARD ……………………………………………………………... 28
1. Beyond Harmonic Conventions ………………………………………………. 28
2. Musical Colors and Imagination ……………………………………………… 49
IV. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………… 61
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………….. 65
v
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1a–c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I. Moderato,
Type 3 Sonata-Form Diagram ………………………………………………………………… 22
Table 2a–c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, I. Moderato, Type 3 Sonata-Form Diagram. 23
Figure 1. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, Use of Whole-Tone Scale (C) … 42
vi
LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES
Ex. 1. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I. Moderato, mm. 1–8 … 12
Ex. 2. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, II. Andante dolce, mm. 1–4 ……………………... 12
Ex. 3. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, I. Moderato, Second-Theme Area, mm. 16–27 …. 13
Ex. 4. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, IV. Allegretto leggero e scherzando 15
Ex. 5a. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, III. Commodo (quasi allegretto), mm. 1–11 …… 20
Ex. 5b. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, I. Andante cantabile, mm. 16–20 ………………. 20
Ex. 5c. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, II. Lento, ma non troppo, mm. 1–9 21
Ex. 5d. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, III. Andante, mm. 1–17. 21
Ex. 6. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, II. Andante dolce, mm. 1–31 ……………………. 25
Ex. 7. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, I. Moderato, mm. 10–15 ………………………… 26
Ex. 8a–b. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I. Moderato ……….. 29
Ex. 9a–c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, III. Andante ……….. 30
Ex. 10a–c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, II. Scherzo ……….. 31
Ex. 11. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I. Moderato, mm. 1–8 .. 33
Ex. 12a–b. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I and IV, Final
Cadences ……………………………………………………………………………………… 35
Ex. 12a. I. Moderato, mm. 129–30.
Ex. 12b. IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 173–74.
Ex. 13. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, IV. Allegro con brio,
mm. 60–94 ……………………………………………………………………………………. 36
Ex. 14a–b. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, I. Andante …………………… 39
Ex. 14a, mm. 1–2.
Ex. 14b, m. 14.
Ex. 15. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, II. Lento, ma non troppo,
mm. 1–4 ………………………………………………………………………………………. 40
mm. 42–47 ……………………………………………………………………………………. 41
vii
LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES (continued)
mm. 53–56 ……………………………………………………………………………………. 41
Ex. 18. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, III. Animato, ma non allegro,
mm. 59–60 (Violin Part), Whole-Tone Scale (C) ……………………………………………. 42
Ex. 19. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, V. Andante non troppo, mm. 1–9. 44
Ex. 20. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, II. Allegro, mm. 1–26 ………………………….. 46
Ex. 21a. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 21–27 ……………... 47
Ex. 21b. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, II. Allegro, mm. 88–91 ………………………... 47
Ex. 21c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, II. Allegro, mm. 95–98 ………………………... 47
Ex. 22. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 233–61 ……………... 48
Ex. 23a. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, III. Animato, ma non allegro,
mm. 43–50 ……………………………………………………………………………………. 50
Ex. 23b. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, IV. Allegretto leggero e
scherzando, mm. 31–34 ……………………………………………………………………… 51
Ex. 23c. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, V. Andante non troppo,
mm. 47–51 ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 51
Ex. 23d. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I. Moderato,
mm. 126–30 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Ex. 23e. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, II. Scherzo,
mm. 190–211 …………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
Ex. 24a. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, II. Scherzo,
mm. 152–55 …………………………………………………………………………………... 53
Ex. 24b. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, IV. Allegro con brio,
mm. 162–74 …………………………………………………………………………………... 54
Ex. 24c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, IV. Allegro con brio,
mm. 72–76 ……………………………………………………………………………………. 55
Ex. 24d. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, V. Andante non troppo,
mm. 35–42 ……………………………………………………………………………………. 55
Ex. 24e. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, III. Con brio, mm. 179–209 …………………... 56
viii
LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES (continued)
Ex. 24f. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, I. Moderato, mm. 63–65 ………………………. 56
Ex. 24g. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, I. Moderato, mm. 28–34 ……………………… 57
Ex. 24h. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, II. Allegro, m. 1 ……………………………….. 57
Ex. 25a–c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis …………………….. 58
Ex. 25a. IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 159–65.
Ex. 25b. II. Scherzo, m. 262.
Ex. 25c. I. Moderato, mm. 42–44.
Ex. 26a–b. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis …………………….. 59
Ex. 26a. II. Scherzo, mm. 65–81 ……………………………………………………………… 59
Ex. 26b. IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 66–71 …………………………………………………… 60
ix
COPYRIGHT PERMISSIONS
Sonata for Two Violins in C, Op. 56

by Sergei Prokofiev
Copyright © 1933 by Hawkes & Son (London), Ltd.
Used by Permission.
Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2, Op. 94a (Arrangement of Flute Sonata No. 2, Op. 94)
by Sergei Prokofiev
Copyright © 1946 (Renewed) by G. Schirmer, Inc. (ASCAP)
International Copyright Secured. All Rights Reserved.
Used by Permission.
Sonata for Solo Violin in D Major, Op. 115

by Sergei Prokofiev
Copyright © 1952 (Renewed) by G. Schirmer, Inc. (ASCAP)
International Copyright Secured. All Rights Reserved.
Used by Permission.
x
I
INTRODUCTION
1. Sergei Prokofiev and the Neo-classical Current
In his early days, Russian composer and pianist Sergei Prokofiev (1891–1953) was a
stubborn, intelligent, and obstinate young man of unmistakable talent. Some said genius. At the
age of six, he was a facile pianist, and at nine he composed his first opera, The Giant (1900), for
which he penned a libretto in three acts and six scenes. During his studies at the Saint-Petersburg
Conservatory, Prokofiev managed to impress and pique the interest of some of the greatest
Russian musical figures of his time, including Alexander Glazunov, Anatoly Lyadov, Nikolai
Myaskosvky—who was to become a life-long friend and confident—and Nikolai Rimsky-
Korsakov, to cite only a few names. And although Prokofiev earned a reputation as an enfant
terrible with crushing repartee,1 he eventually received the highest praise for his performing
skills and original compositions. Despite a certain inner traditionalism, Prokofiev was well
acquainted with controversial works like Stravinsky’s Le sacre du printemps, a composition
symbolic of the avant-garde. Surely, he was well aware of the publicity such work could bring to
a young and ambitious composer like himself. Thereafter, without ever crossing the boundaries
of atonality, Prokofiev employed multiple means to innovate, provoke, and sometimes even
shock audiences to be seen as a modern composer. His Scythian Suite and Piano Concerto No. 2
1
Richard Taruskin, Defining Russia Musically: Historical and Hermeneutical Essays (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), 86–87.
1
surely succeeded in attracting critical attention, already exhibiting Prokofiev’s modernist traits,
particularly harsh dissonances and sarcastic musical passages. Very early on, his musical style
became characterized by a strong duality underlying most of his compositions: strong roots in
music of the past (especially with respect to masters like Haydn and Tchaikovsky) yet an
unstoppable desire to forge a modern idiom. This multi-faceted approach to composition
naturally ingratiated Prokofiev to several influential modernist artists, including Jean Cocteau,
Sergei Diaghilev, Maurice Ravel, Igor Stravinsky, and Les Six.
The early years of the twentieth century saw some composers deliberately look back
rather than forward. Under the over-arching term “neo-classicism” coexist several sub-currents:
there were the anti-romantic pioneers like Satie and Les Six with their concepts of “nouveau
classicisme” and “every-day music,”2 Reger with his “back-to-Bach” movement, Hindemith’s
Gebrauschmusik and evocation of the Baroque, Kurt Weill’s Die Dreigroschenoper (a sort of
German equivalent of what Les Six were doing in Paris), Busoni, the apostle of Young
Classicism (also called New Classicism), and of course Stravinsky’s neo-classical masterpieces.
Prokofiev did not wait for Stravinsky’s Pulcinella (1920)―the seminal neo-classical work of the
period―to explore this new trend. In fact, his Symphony No. 1 in D Major, Op. 25 “Classical”
(1917) positioned him at the forefront of this movement.
Prokofiev lived at a time when Russia could boast some of the most legendary
instrumentalists of all times, including violinists Leonid Kogan, Nathan Milstein, and David
Oistrakh; cellist Mstislav Rostropovich; pianist Sviatoslav Richter; and the Borodin Quartet.
Prokofiev worked closely with many of these distinguished artists, which undoubtedly provided
him the opportunity to refine his writing for stringed instruments in the chamber music medium.
Although Prokofiev’s chamber music output may not be as popular as his ballets and symphonies,
2
Robert Morgan, Twentieth-century Music (New York: Norton & Company, 1991), 159.
2
or as large as some of his peers’s, such as Shostakovich’s, his two string quartets, quintet, cello
sonata, and violin sonatas—works that have been largely ignored—certainly deserve greater
study and recognition.
Unlike traditional tonal music or serial music, there are no standardized protocols for
analyzing neo-classical music. This document includes a combination of graphs, diagrams, tables,
and traditional analytical tools in order to facilitate the discussion.3 By codifying each work’s
traditional and modernist traits, this thesis develops and comments on several theoretical studies
related to Prokofiev’s expansion of the traditional harmonic language. In contrast to Neil
Minturn’s “An Integral Approach to the Music of Sergei Prokofiev”4—in which he invokes set
theory to “decode” Prokofiev’s music—this study does not rely upon any set-theoretical or other
non-tonal analytical method. Nevertheless, it does contain several comments related to
Prokofiev’s manipulation of jazz- and blues-influenced sonorities, pentatonic and whole-tone
scales, and impressionist, extended tertian chordal arrangements, most notably in his Five
Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis.
If a large amount of scholarship has been devoted to Prokofiev’s piano compositions and
orchestral works, relatively little has been written about his chamber music output, especially in
regards to the symbiosis and “overlap” of the neo-classical and modernist currents. In The New
Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Dorothea Redepenning’s long and detailed
3
Expert on neo-classicism, Arnold Whittall expresses serious reservations about utilizing non-
tonal analytical methods, which, in his opinion, often generate hypothetical, unproductive, and over-
simplified conclusions. See Arnold Whittall, “Neo-classicism,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music
and Musicians, ed. S. Sadie and J. Tyrrell, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 2001), 17:753–55.
4
Neil B. Minturn, “An Integral Approach to the Music of Sergei Prokofiev Using Tonal and Set
Theoretical Analytical Technique” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1988), 58–59.
3
biographical entry on Prokofiev fails to mention his Op. 35bis and barely alludes to his Opp. 56,
94bis, and 115.5
By exploring these four violin compositions, this study aims to present a more complete
picture of Prokofiev’s chamber music output for the violin, to shed light on the composer’s neo-
classical approach to composition in small-scale works, and to encourage violinists to explore in
greater depth Prokofiev’s Five Melodies, Sonata for Two Violins, and Solo Violin Sonata—
pieces that enjoy much lesser fame and fewer performances than the composer’s Second Violin
Sonata.
2. Prokofiev’s Opp. 35bis, 56, 94bis, and 115: Background and Genesis
Prokofiev’s Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis stems from his own Five
Songs Without Words for Voice and Piano, Op. 35 composed in 1920, while on tour in the
United States. Prior to his American journey, Prokofiev had just relocated to France. He was
residing in Mantes-la-Jolie, a small French town on the Seine River, northwest of Paris. Eager to
establish a reputation in Paris and in need of money—especially since he was now responsible
for his ailing mother—Prokofiev was ardently working on his ballet Chout (“The Buffoon”),
Op. 21, hoping to collaborate with Diaghilev on a staged production. Prokofiev penned The
Buffoon’s piano reduction while traveling by ship to the United States, in the autumn of 1920.
Unfortunately, his journey began with great difficulties. During the crossing of the Atlantic
5
Dorothea Redepenning, “Prokofiev, Sergey,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and
Musicians, ed. S. Sadie and J. Tyrrell, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 2001), 20:404–23.
4
Ocean, someone stole Prokofiev’s suitcase, which contained valuable sketches for the upcoming
production of The Buffoon. Soon after setting foot in New York, the composer also became
embroiled in a nasty fight over projected performances of his opera The Love for Three Oranges
(1919) at the Chicago Opera. Infuriated and greatly disappointed after multiple attempts to reach
a compromise failed, Prokofiev eventually recovered in California, where he made numerous,
highly successful piano appearances, especially in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Like so many
artists, including virtuosos Jascha Heifetz, Gregor Piatigorsky, and Sergei Rachmaninoff, and
composers Arnold Schœnberg and Igor Stravinsky, Prokofiev fell in love with the peaceful,
colorful, and vast California landscape. From the Hotel Clark in Los Angeles, he wrote: “I am as
ecstatic about California as it is about me. I am smiling along with the California countryside,
and I have gotten those Chicagoans out of my system. Idiots!”6 Prokofiev’s original Five Songs
Without Words, most of which he composed while in California, undoubtedly reflect the
composer’s return to a mellow, serene, and positive mood. As biographer Harlow Robinson
noted:
[The Five Songs Without Words] are a good example of the “lyrical” Prokofiev.
Melody—in soaring, long-breathing legato phrases—is more important in this cycle than
in any of Prokofiev’s previous works for voice. In the early phase of his career, Prokofiev
had thought of the voice primarily as a medium through which to convey a text, and not
as an instrument with its own unique sound and color. Here, he explores these purely
sonic possibilities against a piano accompaniment, which is for the most part restrained,
simple, and subordinated to the melodic line. The highly rhythmic and harshly
declamatory treatment of the voice characteristic of The Love for Three Oranges, The
Gambler, and even The Ugly Duckling is replaced by a softer, more flowing style. So
“instrumental” are these five songs that it was easy for Prokofiev to revise them slightly
for violin and piano in 1925, in which version they are best known today.7
6
As quoted in Harlow Robinson, Sergei Prokofiev: A Biography (New York: Viking Penguin,
1987), 160.
7
Ibid.
5
Like many other composers, including J. S. Bach, Igor Stravinsky, and Dmitri Shostakovich,
arranging or “recasting” some of his own compositions was not uncommon for Prokofiev, as
proven by innumerable orchestral and/or instrumental suites extracted from his own ballets,
operas, and film scores: Opp. 33b, 33c, and 81b originated from his operas The Love for Three
Oranges and Semyon Kotko; Opp. 41b, 46b, 64a, and 64b from the ballets Le Pas d’acier, The
Prodigal Son, and Romeo and Juliet; and Opp. 60a, 60b, 78a, and 116a from the film scores
Lieutenant Kijé, Alexander Nevsky, and Ivan the Terrible, to cite only a few examples. By 1920
Prokofiev had already explored vocal genres on multiple occasions, as shown, for example, by
his Two Poems for Women’s Voice and Orchestra, Op. 7 (1909–10), Two Poems for Voice and
Piano, Op. 9 (1910–11), Five Poems for Voice and Piano, Op. 23 (1915), Five Poems by Anna
Akhmatova, Op. 27 (1916), and Seven, They Are Seven, Op. 30 (1917–18), a cantata for large
orchestra, chorus, and tenor soloist. These experiences, combined with Prokofiev’s direct
exposure to eclectic, modernist musical styles while residing in the United States (1918–1920)
and in France (1920–1933)—particularly that of jazz and French impressionist songs—
undoubtedly contributed to Op. 35bis’s extremely varied and elaborated musical content. After
1920, Prokofiev further explored vocal genres, as exemplified by his Five Poems for Voice and
Piano, Op. 36 (1921); Mass Songs for Voice and Piano, Opp. 66 (1935), 79 (1939), and 89
(1941–42); Three Romances for Voice and Piano, Op. 73 (1936); Songs of Our Days, Op. 76
(1937); and Twelve Russian Folk Songs for Voice and Piano, Op. 104 (1944). Prokofiev’s life-
long interest in vocal music, whether within the realms of opera, cantata, or song is essential to
appreciate his unique neo-classical melodic style and pronounced lyricism.
6
Prokofiev’s Sonata for Two Violins originated during a period of paradoxes and
dilemmas. In the early 1930s, although the composer was enjoying increasing stature, the
Parisian thirst and ardor for modern music made his previous compositions fall somewhat out of
favor and appear outdated. Prokofiev shared some of his frustration in a long interview published
in Candide in mid-December of 1931: “In Paris, I started with success, but then, what trouble!
Not always because the public did not understand my music, but rather because at that moment
there was too much modern music.”8 Despite a very comfortable financial situation and
upcoming performances with the Berlin Philharmonic and Wilhelm Furtwängler (then at the
peak of his career), Prokofiev seriously considered relocating to Moscow in spite of the
worsening economic challenges and increasing political control Russian artists were facing. By
the 1931–32 musical season, Prokofiev’s reputation and fruitful acquaintances with the Parisian
avant-garde earned him invitations to serve on the jury for two concert organizations: Triton and
Sérénade. At this time, Triton included Francis Poulenc, Arthur Honegger, and Darius Milhaud,
three prominent members of Les Six. Prokofiev composed his Sonata for Two Violins
specifically for Triton, while enjoying a relaxing sojourn in the French Riviera. Robinson
reported that Prokofiev decided to compose his Sonata for Two Violins after hearing an
“unsuccessful” sonata for two violins by an as yet unidentified composer in Paris; reportedly,
Prokofiev said, “Sometimes, hearing bad compositions gives birth to good ideas…. One begins
to think: that is not how it should be done, what is needed is this or that.”9 The accomplished
Soetens-Dushkin violin duo gave a well-received Paris premiere of Prokofiev’s Op. 56 the
following December as part of the inaugural concert of Triton, the chamber music society on
which Prokofiev now served (the world premiere occurred in Moscow a couple of weeks before).
8
Ibid., 260.
9
Ibid., 264.
7
At the height of World War II, Oistrakh heard Prokofiev’s Sonata for Flute and Piano in
D Major, Op. 94 and immediately advised the composer to consider writing a version for violin
and piano, hence Op. 94 “bis” or “94a.” The premiere of the violin version was a tremendous
success, enhanced by Oistrakh’s legendary artistry and pertinent insights during the arrangement
process. Soon, the violin version came to overshadow the original flute version in popularity.
Prokofiev composed the original flute version in 1943, during a sojourn in Perm, a Russian city
in the European part of the Ural Mountains utilized as a remote shelter for Soviet artists during
World War II. The Flute Sonata was not the only piece Prokofiev was working on in Perm; he
also completed most of his ballet Cinderella in piano score, which would explain the lyrical
qualities that these two works share.
Commissioned by the Soviet Committee on Artistic Affairs, Prokofiev began composing
his Flute Sonata in 1942, intrigued with the idea of writing a piece for flute, an instrument
“insufficiently represented in musical literature,”10 the composer said. Significantly, this is
Prokofiev’s only sonata—and one of his very few compositions—written for a wind or brass
instrument. Such work might have provided a welcome diversion from feverish work on two
large-scale projects: War and Peace and Ivan the Terrible. Creating a purely abstract and
apolitical work was “perhaps inappropriate at the moment, but pleasant,”11 Prokofiev told close
friend Myaskovsky. One of the most popular pieces in the flute repertoire today, Prokofiev
originally intended this sonata “to sound in bright and transparent classical tones.”12 Judged by
the piece’s optimism, emotional directness, and nearly total absence of sarcasm, Prokofiev
reached his goal. Flutist Nikolai Khardovsky and pianist Sviatoslav Richter premiered the Flute
10
Ibid., 421.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
8
Sonata in Moscow on 7 December 1943. If flutists “did not rush” to perform Prokofiev’s Flute
Sonata, however, violinists, including Oistrakh, took an immediate interest in the piece,
believing correctly that it would “enjoy a more full-blooded life on the stage”13 if rearranged for
violin and piano. The composer proceeded in his usual organized fashion, impressing Oistrakh
who later reported:
Everything happened very quickly…. As [Prokofiev] suggested, I provided two or three

variants for each place in the sonata that required editing. Then I numbered them and
gave them to him to look over. With a pencil, he marked what he found suitable and
made a few corrections. That is how with a minimum of discussion the violin version of
the sonata was completed.14
Prokofiev made few changes to the flute part, mostly for bowing and idiomatic violin techniques,
such as double-stops, harmonics, pizzicatos, etc. The piano accompaniment, however, remained
identical to the original. Oistrakh and long-time piano partner Lev Oborin premiered Prokofiev’s
Second Violin Sonata in Moscow on 17 June 1944. (In fact, this was Prokofiev’s first complete
sonata for violin and piano, but the composer had already given the title Sonata No. 1 for Violin
and Piano to the still unfinished sonata in F minor, Op. 80). In this version—more aggressive and
“biting” than the original flute version, and replete with technical difficulties for the violinist—
Prokofiev’s Second Violin Sonata has enjoyed great popularity with audiences and performers
worldwide.
Prokofiev penned his Sonata for Solo Violin in the midst of nerve-racking political
tension. Despite all his recent successes and the receipt, in June 1947, of his fifth Stalin Prize for
the Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 1 in F Minor, Op. 80, the composer was not exempt from
political censure—far from it. Indeed, his opera War and Peace triggered controversy over the
13
Ibid., 422.
14
Ibid., 427.
9
supposed “historical inaccuracies” of the military scenes. Official attacks were aimed directly at
Prokofiev, a clear sign that Stalin and Zhdanov were watching Soviet composers—even the most
internationally acclaimed ones—and were not afraid to demonstrate their absolute control. (To a
lesser extent, this situation recalled the 1936 scandal over Shostakovich’s opera Lady Macbeth of
the Mtsensk District, although the War and Piece case received less publicity). Deeply concerned
over this situation, Prokofiev conceived his Solo Violin Sonata as an apolitical, “private”
composition. Apparently, and based on the sonata’s full title (Sonata for Solo Violin or Violins
in Unison in D Major, Op. 115), the composer approached this brief three-movement
composition as a type of practice piece—an extended étude considerably less challenging
technically than his other violin compositions—that can be played either by one violinist or by a
group of student violinists. Virtuoso Ruggiero Ricci premiered the Sonata for Solo Violin in
Moscow on 10 July 1959, posthumously, more than six years after Prokofiev’s death.
The composition of Prokofiev’s Five Melodies for Violin and Piano (1925), Sonata for
Two Violins (1932), Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 (1943), and Sonata for Solo Violin (1947)
spans more than a quarter of a century, representing various stages in the composer’s life and
career. Despite differences in terms of their genesis, reception, scope, or purpose, each of these
four violin works reveals recurring underlying facets of Prokofiev’s musical style, notably in the
subtle equilibrium between the composer’s thirst for innovation and his tempered attachment to
musical traditions.
10
II
THE WEIGH OF THE PAST
1. Prokofiev’s Quest for a “New Simplicity”
To a first-time listener, one of the most striking elements in Prokofiev’s Opp. 35bis, 56,
94bis, and 115 is the naturalness and simplicity of certain themes, which the composer
underscores with clearly articulated phrase structures as well as an unpretentious, yet immensely
stylish, musical language. For instance, the very opening of Prokofiev’s Second Violin Sonata is
an excellent example of a musical period (see Example 1). Prokofiev constructed it using two
almost identical four-measure phrases (the consequent is for the most part a simple transposition
of the antecedent a whole-step down, from D to C); the antecedent ends with an inconclusive
cadence allowing the consequent to bring the period to full closure by cadencing on a tonic chord.
A similar observation can be made about the beginning of the second movement of
Prokofiev’s Solo Violin Sonata (see Example 2). Here, the musical material features even greater
melodic and structural simplicity compared with Example 1. This musical period consists of two
very similar two-measure phrases. The antecedent phrase ends on an implied dominant seventh
chord (V7), thus creating the necessary forward motion through harmonic tension until the
consequent reaches a close at m. 4 with an implied tonic chord in first inversion. The simplicity
of this opening melody is astonishing considering this sonata’s date of composition, that is 1947,
11
twenty-six years after Prokofiev’s Third Piano Concerto, twelve years after Romeo and Juliet,
and only six years before the composer’s death.
Ex. 1. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I. Moderato, mm. 1–8.
┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ antecedent ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ consequent ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
Ex. 2. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, II. Andante dolce, mm. 1–4.
B♭ Major: V7 I6
┗━━━━━━ antecedent ━━━━━━┛ ┗━━━━━ consequent ━━━━━┛
12
Balance and order also characterize the first movement of Prokofiev’s Sonata for Solo
Violin. For instance, the exposition’s and recapitulation’s second-theme areas consist of an
almost uninterrupted succession of periodic two-measure units, which can be represented as
follows: AA' BB' AA' CC' D closing (see Example 3). Moreover, Prokofiev sometimes
combined single periods (e.g., AA' or BB') into double periods as well (e.g., AA'BB'). Overall,
the regularity and predictability of the composer’s musical syntax can be attributed to triadic
harmonies and Alberti-like broken chords (e.g., m. 16), immediately reminding the listener of
eighteenth-century musical compositions, particularly the keyboard sonatas of Domenico
Scarlatti, F. J. Haydn, and W. A. Mozart.
Ex. 3. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, I. Moderato, Second-Theme Area, mm. 16–27.
┌────────── A ──────
──────────────────────┐┌───────────────── A' ──────────────────┐
┌────────────────── B ──────────────────┐┌─────────── B' ───────
───────────────────┐┌────────────────── A ───────────────────┐
etc.
13
Periodic phrase structures are also found in the fourth melody of Prokofiev’s Five
Melodies for Violin and Piano (see Example 4). However, in this example and in contrast to
Example 3, Prokofiev mingles regularity with variety, wit, and even a few surprises along the
way. Indeed, six-measure periods (consisting of two three-measure phrases) and four-measure
periods (consisting of two two-measure phrases) alternate, separated by double bars with change
of key signature, from three sharps to none at all. This structural and harmonic variety—
combined with the piano’s stride accompaniment figures and the violin’s frequent spiccato
notes—greatly enhances this concise Allegretto leggero e scherzando’s “joking” character,
constantly playing with the listener’s expectations.
14
Ex. 4. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, IV. Allegretto leggero e scherzando.
15
16
Such neo-classical characteristics are symbolic of Prokofiev’s quest for a “new
simplicity,”1 in other words, a style that would balance the referential “old” and the utterly
“new.” Musicologist and Russian music specialist Richard Taruskin rightly points out that
Prokofiev did not merely attempt to recreate a traditional composition, as Prokofiev himself
mentioned, “It was not a question of the ‘old simplicity’ that consisted in the repetition of what
had earlier been said, but of a new simplicity, linked with the new direction our lives were
taking.”2 Taruskin also describes Prokofiev’s musical style as elite modernism or modernist
professionalism rather than an avant-garde or revolutionary:
[Prokofiev] made sure that an academician could always detect his underlying allegiance
to the traditional values and skills on which grades were based. This remained true
throughout his life; it is utterly characteristic of Prokofiev that beneath the clangorous
surface there always lay a simple harmonic design and a stereotyped formal pattern
straight out of the textbook.3
2. Neo-classical Syntax, Texture, and Formal Designs
Besides balanced phrase structures, craftsmanship, and ideal proportions, Prokofiev’s
music embodies such “new simplicity” at numerous levels, including the use of conventional
harmonic plans, stylized movements, neo-Mozartian or Haydnesque transparent textures (see
Examples 5a–d), and traditional formal designs (e.g., theme and variations, rondo, ternary, and
1
Scott Messing, Neoclassicism in Music: From the Genesis of the Concept through the
Schœnberg/Stravinsky Polemic (Ann Arbor: U.M.I. Research Press, 1988), 77.
2
As quoted in Claude Samuel, Prokofiev, trans. Miriam John (London: Calder & Boyars, 1971),
149.
3
Taruskin, Defining Russia Musically, 86–87.
17
sonata forms). For example, the first movements of Prokofiev’s Second Violin Sonata and Solo
Violin Sonata closely follow the structural and harmonic principles of the eighteenth-century
sonata form, specifically the most commonly employed, fully rotational, three-part “Type 3
Sonata Form,”4 as shown in Tables 1a–c and 2a–c. In many cases, Prokofiev even inserted a
double bar and repeat sign at the end of the exposition! As paradoxical as it may seem, Prokofiev
considered sonata form the most flexible of all structures.5 Such formal analyses reveal certain
commonalities among Prokofiev’s violin compositions:
1. The prominence of overall tonalities with few, if any, accidentals, such as C major
(Sonata for Two Violins), D major (Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 and Violin Concerto
No. 1), A major (Sonata for Solo Violin), and G minor (Violin Concerto No. 2). These tonalities
are particularly well suited to the violin, enabling frequent use of open strings for greater clarity,
intonation, and practicality. Furthermore, most of these tonalities allow the violinist to employ
open strings for the hierarchical tonal system’s most important pitches. For instance, in the tonal
context of A major or D major, the tonic, dominant, and subdominant pitches—i.e., the harmonic
pillars—correspond to three out of the violin’s four open-strings; in the keys of C major or
G minor, tonic and dominant pitches can be played with open strings.
2. Based on Tables 1a–c and 2a–c, Prokofiev treated first-theme areas concisely
when compared to second-theme areas—a tendency strongly reminiscent of Mozart’s use of
4
The term “Type 3 Sonata Form” refers to the standard “textbook” structure, which includes full
exposition, development, and recapitulation, each of which features its own independent rotational design.
See James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and Deformations in
the Late Eighteenth-Century Sonata (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 3–340.
5
Israel Nestyev, Prokofiev, trans. Florence Jonas (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1960),
484.
18
sonata form, especially in comparison to Haydn. Moreover, Prokofiev’s insertion of a new theme
in the development section reveals another commonality with Mozart (see Table 1b).
3. The development sections subscribe to the traditional definition of this section in
regards to their thematic content and harmonic design: in essence, they reiterate and manipulate
fragments of previously heard themes (P, S, and transition); they feature harmonic instability
with sudden modulations to far-related keys; they include more counterpoint and musical drama
than P or S; and they often conclude with functional re-transitions that elide development and
recapitulation sections.
19
Ex. 5a. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, III. Commodo (quasi allegretto), mm. 1–11.
Ex. 5b. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, I. Andante cantabile, mm. 16–20.
┌──────────── melody ───────────┐
┗━ broken-chord accompaniment ━┛

By Sergei Prokofiev
Copyright © 1933 by Hawkes & Son (London) Ltd.
Reprinted by Permission.
20
Ex. 5c. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, II. Lento, ma non troppo, mm. 1–9.
Ex. 5d. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, III. Andante, mm. 1–17.
21
Table 1a–c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I. Moderato, Type 3
Sonata-Form Diagram.
Table 1a. EXPOSITION
P Transition S EEC Closing

D Major A Major PAC A Major
(I)
~~~~~> (V) (in A Major) (V)
melodic, periodic, modulatory,

motivic see Ex. 8a :||
stable energizing
mm. 1–8 mm. 9–20 mm. 21–37 mm. 37–38 mm. 38–41
Table 1b. DEVELOPMENT
from J, S, re-
new theme J from P from S from P from S
transition transition
martelé, grandiose, dramatic rhythmic

noble bridge-like multi-layer
“trumpet call” high range climax slowdown
descending,
A Major #
(V)
C# Major B Major G# Major ||♭ ♭ B♭ M || # (e-B-B♭) chromatic
bass line
lurking thin
motives from
triplet-motive -------> -------> -------> -------> texture,
transition
from J piano only
mm. 42–51 mm. 52–55 mm. 56–61 mm. 62–65 mm. 66–70 mm. 71–83 mm. 84–88
Table 1c. RECAPITULATION
P Transition S ESC Closing Coda

D Major
-------> -------> PAC -------> ------->
(I)
melodic, energizing,
motivic see Ex. 8b stable “fantasy-like”
periodic, stable non-modulatory
mm. 89–96 mm. 96–102 mm. 103–114 mm. 114–15 mm. 115–18 mm. 119–30
22
Table 2a–c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, I. Moderato, Type 3 Sonata-Form Diagram.
Table 2a. EXPOSITION
P Transition S EEC Closing

D Major A Major AC A Major
~~~~~>
(I) (V) (in A Major) (V)
modulatory, bridge to
motivic melodic, periodic tonic with tremolo
energizing development ||
mm. 1–9 mm. 10–17 mm. 18–36 mm. 36–37 mm. 38–45
Table 2b. DEVELOPMENT
re-
from P from transition bridge from S
transition
playful sequential double-stops S ornamented A-pedal
descending
modulatory poly-centricity F Major ~~~> A minor (V)
chromatic line
mm. 46–49 mm. 50–52 mm. 53–56 mm. 57–66 m. 67
Table 2c. RECAPITULATION
P Transition S ESC Closing

D Major
-------> -------> -------> ------->
(I)
energizing,
motivic extended AC quotes P
non-modulatory
mm. 68–76 mm. 77–87 mm. 88–112 mm. 112–13 mm. 113–17
23
Lawrence and Elisabeth Hanson pointed out the neo-Baroque movement sequence
slow-fast-slow-fast (utilized in Prokofiev’s Sonata for Two Violins and Sonata for Violin and
Piano No. 2) as resembling a Baroque trio sonata da chiesa.6 Prokofiev’s Solo Violin Sonata also
contains features reminiscent of the Baroque musical style, including the composer’s choice of a
sonata for unaccompanied violin—potentially suggesting the influence of J. S. Bach’s Sonatas
and Partitas for Solo Violin, BWV 1001–1006—the abundant use of sequences, and the rustic,
gigue-like character of the last movement’s opening theme. Nevertheless, as it is often the case
with Prokofiev, the composer did not limit his references to past musical styles to a single
stylistic period. Indeed, in his Solo Violin Sonata, Prokofiev also revisited classical stylistic
trends of the eighteenth-century, particularly the theme-and-variation formal organization
(II. Andante dolce, see Example 6), and the extensive utilization of Alberti-like broken chords
(see Example 7).
6
Lawrence and Elisabeth Hanson, Prokofiev: The Prodigal Son, An Introduction to His Life and
Work in Three Movements (London: Cassell & Company, 1964), 195.
24
Ex. 6. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, II. Andante dolce, mm. 1–31.
25
Ex. 7. Prokofiev, Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, I. Moderato, mm. 10–15.
Rhythm represents an essential component of Prokofiev’s vivid musical style. Yet,
despite the great rhythmic innovations or “revolutions” of the first half of the twentieth
century—by Stravinsky and Bartók for example—Prokofiev did not employ modernist rhythmic
features or complex polyrhythmic patterns. Instead, his approach to rhythm remains fairly
traditional. A strong sense of the beat and relatively few meter changes characterize the metric
landscape. Note that Stravinsky composed Le sacre du printemps—with its “primitive”
rhythms—more than thirty years before Prokofiev’s Opp. 94bis and 115; and Bartók penned his
Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta—with its revolutionary opening palindrome—more
than ten years earlier. In spite of all this, Prokofiev sought another type of rhythmic
modernism—one rooted in a type of refined rhythmic traditionalism.
Thus, the modernity of Prokofiev’s musical language in these four violin compositions
can not be found in the invention of new forms or in the utilization of revolutionary structural
designs; nor does it rely on any avant-garde harmonic trend of the era, such as atonality or
Schœnberg’s twelve-tone technique. Instead, it stems from pre-existing compositional techniques.
So a question remains: what are the modernist aspects of Prokofiev’s Opp. 35bis, 56, 94bis, and
115? These four violin compositions are unquestionably from the first half of the twentieth
26
century, for they are suffused with modernism, which often tends to create a strident surface that
masks the underlying traditional forms and structures.7
7
I am alluding to the “mask metaphor” discussed by Maureen Carr in reference not only to Greek
and German philosophy, but also to Stravinsky’s neo-classical compositions on Greek subjects. See
Maureen A. Carr, Multiple Masks (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002).
27
III
LOOKING FORWARD
1. Beyond Harmonic Conventions
In terms of his harmonic language, Prokofiev relied on the traditional major and minor
harmonies as a foundation upon which to explore non-functional relationships. The overall
tonalities—designations Prokofiev usually supplied—are reinforced by the use of functional
harmony, yet enriched by expansions to the diatonic system. In this regard, Rebecca Sue
Kaufman asserts that in certain of his late chamber music works, Prokofiev extracts his tonal
foundation and then broadens the scope of his harmonic system.1 She supports her claim of an
expanded diatonic system by focusing on altered chords, triads enhanced by added notes,
chromatic voice-leading, and enharmonic relations, elements that connect distantly related tonal
areas. Examples 8a and 8b—i.e., the Essential Expositional Cadence (EEC) and Essential
Structural Cadence (ESC) of Prokofiev’s Second Violin Sonata’s first movement—exhibit some
of these techniques. In Example 8a, Prokofiev approaches an authentic cadence in the passing
tonal context of A major (the overall key of the sonata is D major) through chromatic means: an
E♭-minor triad “slides up” to a dominant seventh chord (V7) before resolving to a tonic chord (I).
Prokofiev colorfully mingles the E♭-minor and V7 chords by omitting the latter’s fifth (B♮) and
conserving the former’s fifth (B♭) throughout the measure, and by means of enharmonic relations,
1
Rebecca Sue Kaufman, “Expanded Tonality in the Late Chamber Works of Sergei Prokofiev”
(Ph.D. diss., University of Kansas, 1987), 222–24.
28
utilizing A♭ to “announce” G#, the leading-tone. Although B♭ is a chord tone for most of m. 37,
the unexpected return of the A-major tonality retrospectively confers it an additional function,
that of a dissonant, upper-neighbor tone to the tonic (A). The same description applies to the
movement’s Essential Structural Cadence (see Example 8b).
Ex. 8a–b. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I. Moderato.
Ex. 8a. Essential Expositional Cadence (EEC), mm. 37–38.
┌─── EEC ───┐
A Major: V7 I
Ex. 8b. Essential Structural Cadence (ESC), mm. 112–15.

┌─── ESC ───┐
D Major: V7 I
29
Beyond the traditional emphasis on the tonic-dominant relationship and intervals of third
and fifth within the realm of common-practice tonality, the interval of a second—the minor
second in particular—often plays a significant role in Prokofiev’s musical style. Melodically or
on a horizontal level, this interval often functions as a neighboring- and passing-tone generator.
On many occasions, it even acts as pivot for numerous chromatic bridges, utilized not only to
link, but also to blend, traditional chord progressions and non-functional harmony. For instance,
in the third movement of his Second Sonata for Violin and Piano, Prokofiev saturates the melody
with seconds and the full chromatic potential of their narrow range (see Examples 9a–c). Note
that at a higher level, this section also represents a large neighboring harmonic motion from
C major to B minor, and back to C major—again a minor second.
Ex. 9a–c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, III. Andante.
Ex. 9a. mm. 35–36. Ex. 9b. mm. 43–44. Ex. 9c. m. 53.
C major ———————— B minor ———————— C major
30
Examples 10a–c demonstrate another instance of stepwise harmonic motion utilizing the
interval of the second. In this case, Prokofiev connects distantly related tonal areas (D minor,
D♭ major, and A major) through means of chromatic voice-leading, enharmonic relations, and
common tones to lessen the sudden shifts. At m. 58, Prokofiev establishes the key of D minor,
which then slides down to D♭ major at m. 75, and eventually “mutates” into the flamboyant
A-major tonality at m. 83. At this point, Prokofiev truly plays with the listener’s expectations,
yet having prepared the third of this new tonality (i.e., C#) through the previous utilization of its
enharmonic equivalent, D♭.
Ex. 10a–c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, II. Scherzo.
Ex. 10a. m. 58. Ex. 10b. m. 76. Ex. 10c. m. 83.
31
Besides featuring traditional aspects of the eighteenth-century musical period, Example
11 also exhibits some of Prokofiev’s modernist harmonic trademarks:
1. The elaboration of carefully crafted relationships between tones, intervals, and
tonalities (C♮, first appearing at mm. 1 and 3 returns at m. 5 in the tonal context of C major; B♭
and F♮, first appearing at m. 2 reoccur at mm. 82–89, the movement’s most dramatic area with
unprecedented rhythmic activity, highest range, and largest ambitus. F♮ and B♭ also return in the
third movement as tonic and subdominant, respectively;
2. The multiplicity and juxtaposition of tonal axes: the beginning of the antecedent
and consequent phrases emphasizes D major and C major, respectively, the violin highlighting
these triads’s fifth, A and G. Prokofiev produces greater harmonic ambiguity by inserting B♭-
major and A♭-major sonorities at mm. 2 and 6, even combining them at m. 7, on the first beat;
3. The use of contrapuntal linear displacement at m. 8, at which point the inner and
outer voices seem “out of phase,” thus generating colorful dissonances; and
4. The use of third-related tonal centers: the antecedent phrase’s bass line follows an
overall D–B♭–G descending motion (see mm. 1, 2, and 4) and acts similarly in the consequent
phrase, from C down to A♭. However, as a whole, this period’s bass line resembles a large
D–C♮–D neighboring motion (see mm. 1, 5, and 8)—once more the interval of the second—thus
preserving balance and order.
32
Ex. 11. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I. Moderato, mm. 1–8.
┗━━━━━━━━┛
contrapuntal linear displacement
In “Prokofiev’s Technique of Chromatic Displacement,” Richard Bass labels Prokofiev’s
unusual chromatic progressions as a type of chromatic displacement.2 Similar to Kaufman’s
analyses (see p. 28), Bass’s conclusions are based on a modified Schenkerian approach, which
enables him to clarify tonal and voice-leading structures, and isolate Prokofiev’s frequent
deviations from strict diatonicism.3 From a somewhat different angle, William Austin considers
tonality in Prokofiev’s general musical style not as twisted, but stretched in a new way.4 He also
2
Richard Bass, “Prokofiev’s Technique of Chromatic Displacement,” Music Analysis 7 (1988):
199.
3
Ibid., 200.
4
William W. Austin, Music in the 20th Century: From Debussy through Stravinsky (New York:
Norton & Company, 1966), 454.
33
compares Prokofiev’s chord progressions to “jolts of modulation interweaved with rhythmic
momentum.”5 Prokofiev scholar Deborah Rifkin also discusses Prokofiev’s unusual chromatic
progressions;6 she claims that “wrong notes” actively participate in tonal coherence and asserts
that recurring motives help create relationships that make a supposedly “wrong note” belong in
the music.7 Most studies on Prokofiev’s harmonic language contain frequent references to the so-
called concept of the “wrong note,” in other words, an odd- note combination. In this scenario,
certain non-hierarchical prolongation techniques appear to function as “wrong-note” generators:
e.g., importance of the minor second (see Examples 9a–c and 10a–c); predominance of the
supertonic and subdominant chords over the dominant chord, especially at structural cadences
(see Examples 12a and 12b); and utilization of chords outside the diatonic system. The latter are
indeed structurally important sonorities rather than mere harmonic embellishments; in some
cases, the secondary tonal area does not even belong to the overall diatonic system. For instance,
in the fourth movement of Prokofiev’s Second Violin Sonata, the composer surprises the listener
by inserting an F-major episode at m. 72 (see Example 13); not only does Prokofiev modulate to
a remote harmonic territory, but this episode’s new tonic, F♮, does not even belong to the
diatonic system of the movement’s overall tonality, D major.
5
Ibid.
6
Deborah Rifkin, “A Theory of Motives for Prokofiev’s Music,” Music Theory Spectrum 26
(2004): 265–89.
7
The expression “wrong note” is inconsistently applied in the literature. Patricia Ashley invokes
the term to refer to a progression in which the soprano notes of two chords appear to be exchanged and
again in a situation in which bass notes are one semitone too high to conform to the harmonies created by
the upper voices. Austin uses the term to describe an extended appoggiatura on the raised fourth scale
degree, even though it progresses, as might be expected, to the dominant. See Patricia Ashley,
“Prokofiev’s Piano Music: Line, Chord, and Key” (Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, 1963), 39, 42;
and William W. Austin, “Prokofiev’s Fifth Symphony,” The Music Review 17 (1956): 216.
34
Ex. 12a–b. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I and IV, Final Cadences.
Ex. 12a. I. Moderato, mm. 129–30.
D Major: ii(Ø6/5–○6) I
Ex. 12b. IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 173–74.
(6)
D Major: IV I ——————
35
Ex. 13. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2, Op. 94bis, IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 60–94.
36
37
In his Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Prokofiev not only broadens the harmonic
spectrum with sporadic dissonances or pockets of polytonality, but at several junctures, ventures
into modern harmonic territories of exotic scales and jazz/blues colorization. Indeed, the latter
appears at the outset of the work, setting a relaxed mood that remains throughout the entire first
melody; despite what appears to be Prokofiev’s establishment of the A♭-major tonality with an
opening E♭-A♭ dominant-tonic-like bass motion (which reoccurs in a similar fashion at mm. 3
and 4 and mm. 21 and 22) and an A♭-pedal in the bass line, the composer instead saturates the
entire movement with non-chord tones (e.g., retardations and non-tonic or -dominant pedals) as
well as flatted thirds, sevenths, and sometimes fifths (so-called blue notes). As a result, Prokofiev
builds intricate, yet colorful aggregates of sounds. He combines and superimposes overlapping
melodies, horizontally and vertically, generating a wide palette of expressive dissonances that
tend to blur any sense of harmonic direction, as shown by the added figures in Examples 14a and
14b. Nonetheless, Prokofiev once more manages to smoothly connect most chords through the
use of common tones, stepwise chromaticism, enharmonic relations, and overall sense of
direction (e.g., mm. 1–3, 4–5, 19–21, and 22–23 show a similar overall descending pattern). The
result is that of a gently “floating” web of jazz- and blues-influenced harmonies. Yet, as always
with Prokofiev, this first melody sounds entirely original and devoid of caricature.
38
Ex. 14a–b. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, I. Andante.
Ex. 14a, mm. 1–2.
9 11 4/3 Ø7 9 6/5
Ex. 14b, m. 14.
9 11 9 7
39
Following such harmonic complexity and an abundance of extended tertian chords,
Prokofiev boldly changes course in the second melody. In effect, he sets the first ten measures to
a blending of C major and A-natural minor (A-pedal over repeating G–C bass pattern), avoiding
sharps and flats altogether—quite a contrast compared to the first melody. One may also analyze
this passage as a blending of the Ionian and Aeolian modes.8 Employing or alluding to the
Church modes was indeed common practice amongst many twentieth-century neo-classical
composers, especially Stravinsky, a close acquaintance of Prokofiev’s. Moreover, this temporary
return to (relative) harmonic simplicity after the complex first melody is reinforced by structural
and textural clarity, let alone the playful violin pizzicatos (see Example 15).
Ex. 15. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, II. Lento, ma non troppo, mm. 1–4.
A-pedal ——————————————————————————————
G ------ C G ------ C G ------ C G ------ C
8
In regards to modal harmony, Prokofiev’s first piano composition to be written down (by his
mother), an Indian Gallop, was in the Lydian mode (F major with a B natural instead of B flat), as the
young Sergei felt “reluctance to tackle the black notes of the piano.” See Sergei Prokofiev, Sergei
Prokofiev: Soviet Diary 1927 and Other Writings, trans. and ed. Oleg Prokofiev and Christopher Palmer
(Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992), 229.
40
Besides modal sonorities, the second melody is also remarkable for its incorporation of
exotic scales, in particular the pentatonic and whole-tone scales (see Example 16). In this
passage, Prokofiev ingenuously mingles the [E, G#, A#, C#, D#] pentatonic scale with fragments
of the C whole-tone scale [E, (F#), G#, A#, B#]. Prokofiev even reinforces the pentatonic scale’s
exoticism in several ways: first, he gives it to the violin, at the top of the texture; second, he
makes it easily recognizable by grouping its pitch content within a single measure (e.g., mm. 43,
45, and 47), repeating the same two-measure pattern several times (indicated with slurs); and
third, Prokofiev then adds short, accented articulation and trills, thus producing distinctive
Chinese-like sounding qualities (see Example 17).
41
Furthermore, Prokofiev also employs the C whole-tone scale in order to connect the
second and third melodies (see Example 18). Indeed, the latter contains instances of the entire
whole-tone scale reminiscent of Ravel’s harmonic language9 (again given to the violin, at the top
of the texture) most notably at mm. 20–21 and 59–60, although now in a seemingly reversed
order compared to the whole-tone scale segments of the second melody (see Figure 1).
Ex. 18. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, III. Animato, ma non allegro,
mm. 59–60 (Violin Part), Whole-Tone Scale (C).
Fig. 1. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, Utilization of Whole-Tone Scale (C).
Fragment of C whole-tone scale in melody no. 2: [E, (F#), G#, A#, B#]
Complete C whole-tone scale in melody no. 3: [A#/B♭, G#, F#, E, D, C]
9
The admiration Prokofiev felt for Ravel was reciprocal. After the Paris premiere of Prokofiev’s
ballet Chout (“The Buffoon”) on 17 May 1921, Ravel called it “a work of genius.” Prokofiev said the
following about the French composer: “The only [French composer] who knows what he is doing is
Ravel. All the rest are hopeless.” Prokofiev’s respect for Ravel seems to run like a leitmotif through his
writings, culminating in a thousand-word obituary/appreciation published in the newspaper Sovetskoye
iskusstvo (“Russian Art”) in January 1938. See Stephen D. Press, Prokofiev’s Ballets for Diaghilev
(Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 217.
42
Prokofiev carries references to fin-de-siècle French music a step further in the fifth and
last melody with a style reminiscent of Debussy’s impressionist musical compositions (see
Example 19). Here, Prokofiev displays tremendous skill at invoking the French impressionism
by combining the characteristic melodicism of impressionist songs (such as “Romance-silence
ineffable” and “Regret” from Debussy’s Mélodies de jeunesse) with the sounds of impressionist
“water music” (such as “Reflets dans l’eau” from Debussy’s Images). Example 19 features a
simple melody supported by stagnant extended tertian vertical sonorities played by the piano.
Although suggesting the A-major tonality with the insertion and repetition of G#, Prokofiev
carefully avoids using the tonic (A) or any form of cadential motion until m. 7, by which time the
harmony has now moved away from A major. Instead, Prokofiev polarizes the harmonic texture
with a long, insistent B-pedal in the bass line and a recurring C# in the treble of the piano
accompaniment (this C# is precisely the element that generates “water-music” qualities,
strategically placed on each measure’s second beat). These two notes (low B and high C#) frame
the piano’s inner voices’s alternating F#/G# and G#/F# figures. Significantly, Prokofiev employs
the latter in a mirroring manner, a technique dear to impressionist composers. Overall, this
passage exhibits how Prokofiev is able to utilize virtually the entire palette of impressionist
musical techniques in just a few measures: repetitive, non-functional harmony precluding clear
forward motion; extended tertian chords creating dissonances, thus colorizing the entire texture;
harmonic polarization only suggesting a tonic never clearly stated; symmetrical, mirroring
technique reinforcing harmonic ambiguity and hypnotic sense of stagnation; and subtle emphasis
on weak beats, which produces the illusion of forward motion. Such a compositional tour-de-
force not only pays great homage to impressionist composers but also demonstrates Prokofiev’s
43
artistry and chameleon-like compositional technique, being able to assimilate and revisit diverse,
eclectic musical styles in a genuine and convincing manner.
Ex. 19. Prokofiev, Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, V. Andante non troppo, mm. 1–9.
Despite the heterogeneous character of his Five Melodies, Prokofiev managed to
compose a coherent collection through different means. First, the melodies Nos. 2–5 seem to
“gravitate” around the same pitch A, whether as a tonic or a prominent pitch center: at its outset,
the second melody emphasizes A-natural minor (or the Aeolian mode) and concludes with a
cadential-like chord progression that includes a G#-A leading-tone motion; the third melody ends
on a half-cadence in the context of A minor, thus connecting the third to the fourth melody—
44
which begins in A major—in an attacca manner. Indeed, Prokofiev set the fourth melody in the
overall tonality of A major with the corresponding three-sharp key signature; and in the fifth and
last melody, the note A functions as an important pitch center, especially at the very beginning
and in the Meno mosso section. Second, each melody possesses a unique character or “identity,”
undoubtedly enhanced by stylistic variety. As a result, Prokofiev’s Five Melodies cycle
resembles a collection of contrasting, yet convincing, character pieces, each in its own way, that
counter-balance one another.
Contrasting with his Opp. 35bis, 94bis, and 115, Prokofiev’s Sonata for Two Violins
alternates serene melodic phrases with aggressive passages, which produces a sense of
Stravinskian primitiveness and strident anxiety (see Example 20). In this example, harsh,
dissonant chords (see mm. 1, 9, and 11) eventually give place to a soft and relaxed melody at
m. 15 (marked dolce e poco sostenuto). Throughout the four movements, the two violins at times
converse, fight, reconcile, but somehow always seem to come to peace at the end of each
movement. In this sonata, Prokofiev juxtaposes neo-classical features (e.g., overall C-major
tonality, Alberti bass, textural clarity, and simple tunes) with modernist harmonies, Bartókian
rhythmic energy, accented dissonances (as shown by arrows in Examples 21a–c), and even out-
of-phase-like passages resulting from rhythmic displacement and a variety of articulation (see
Example 22).
45
Ex. 20. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, II. Allegro, mm. 1–26.

By Sergei Prokofiev
46
Ex. 21a. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 21–27.
Ex. 21b. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, II. Allegro, mm. 88–91.
Ex. 21c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, II. Allegro, mm. 95–98.
↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑

By Sergei Prokofiev
47
Ex. 22. Prokofiev, Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 233–61.

By Sergei Prokofiev
48
Although analytical approaches to Prokofiev’s harmonic language bring interesting ideas
and convincing points, it appears that no single approach is sufficient to fully describe and
capture the essence of Prokofiev’s harmonic language—especially considering the vast range of
styles and genres the composer explored and synthesized. Rather, diverse analytical approaches
complement one another. In fact, the concepts of chromatic displacement, linear displacement,
stretched harmonic language, “wrong-note” generators, tonal/modal mixture, unusual scales, and
pitch polarization, when combined provide a complete picture of the complexity and originality
of Prokofiev’s harmonic idiom. Furthermore, analyses often focus on similar technical elements
but from different angles, providing personalized interpretations and conclusions that, although
often dissimilar, are rarely entirely divergent. In the case of Prokofiev’s musical language,
synthesizing multiple analyses, in fact, reveals stratified layers of craftsmanship, both vertically
and horizontally, bringing one closer to meaningful conclusions.
2. Musical Colors and Imagination
By the early 1920s, Prokofiev had mastered writing for stringed instruments, especially
with his First Violin Concerto and Quintet, both composed in 1923—let alone his opera
The Love for Three Oranges composed in 1919, which exploits stringed instruments in a highly
demanding manner. Indeed, Prokofiev infused his Five Melodies (1925), Sonata for Two Violins
(1932), Violin Sonata No. 2 (1943), and Sonata for Solo Violin (1947) with modernist elements
through the use of unusual colors and idiomatic techniques. For instance, in his Opp. 35bis and
49
94bis, Prokofiev utilizes natural, fingered, and double-harmonics (see Examples 23a–e); he often
employs harmonics at structural moments, such as at the end of a movement (see Examples
23b–d) or in order to highlight prominent themes (see Examples 23a and 23c). Prokofiev
apparently favored harmonics for the different sound quality they offer. Harmonics can produce
a crystal-clear, celestial tone evocative of the moonlight or the surreal, in the purest and most
peaceful manner; or they can produce a piercing, “trenchant,” metallic sound, especially in the
case of double-harmonics (see Example 23e).
Ex. 23a–e. Prokofiev’s Utilization of Natural, Fingered, and Double-Harmonics.
Ex. 23a. Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, III. Animato, ma non allegro, mm. 43–50.
50
Ex. 23b. Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, IV. Allegretto leggero e scherzando, mm. 31–34.
Ex. 23c. Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, V. Andante non troppo, mm. 47–51.
Ex. 23d. Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, I. Moderato, mm. 126–30.
51
Ex. 23e. Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, II. Scherzo, mm. 190–211.
52
Prokofiev’s frequent use of perfect fifths, octaves, sixteenths, three- and four-note chords,
open strings, and other hammer-like pianistic techniques also produces very distinctive
“metallic” sounds, thus providing a sharp, yet exciting, contrast with the more traditional, lyrical
melodies. In this regard, Prokofiev’s unorthodox approach of the piano is an essential factor; the
piano, Prokofiev often insisted, was a percussion instrument and had to be played percussively—
which he often did, throwing out bleak dissonances and propulsive rhythms with complete
control and emotional detachment.10 Prokofiev’s tremendous talent as a pianist is indeed central
to his compositional style. According to Serge Moreux, Prokofiev, with “the powerful sonority
of his nervous attack, reinforced by an inflexible technique, was called the Paganini of the
Piano.”11 Surely, such vigorous gestures are well captured in Prokofiev’s violin parts as well (see
Examples 24a–h).
Ex. 24a–h. Prokofiev’s Hammer-Like, “Metallic” Sounding with Octaves, Sixteenths, Perfect Fifths, and
Open Strings.
Ex. 24a. Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, II. Scherzo, mm. 152–55.
10
Harold Schonberg, The Lives of the Great Composers, 3rd. ed. (New York: Norton & Company,
1997), 526.
11
Serge Moreux, “Prokofiev: An Intimate Portrait,” Tempo, New Series 11 (April 1949): 7.
53
Ex. 24b. Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 162–74.
54
Ex. 24c. Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 72–76.
Ex. 24d. Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis, V. Andante non troppo, mm. 35–42.
55
Ex. 24e. Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, III. Con brio, mm. 179–209.
Ex. 24f. Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, I. Moderato, mm. 63–65.
56
Ex. 24g. Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115, I. Moderato, mm. 28–34.
Ex. 24h. Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56, II. Allegro, m. 1.

By Sergei Prokofiev
Compared with the original flute version, Prokofiev’s Op. 94bis displays a broader range
of timbres and variety of techniques. Besides the aforementioned utilization of natural, fingered,
and double harmonics, this sonata also includes substantial use of double stops, “trumpet call”-
like motives, and left-hand pizzicatos (see Examples 25a–c). Most notably, the second and fourth
movements feature abrupt juxtapositions of modernist techniques, such as cascading
embellishments over two octaves and slides all over the fingerboard, which unfold at a
breakneck pace (see Examples 26a and 26b).
57
Ex. 25a–c. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis.
Ex. 25a. IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 159–65, double stops (violin part).
Ex. 25b. II. Scherzo, m. 262, left-hand pizzicato (notated with the symbol + ).
Ex. 25c. I. Moderato, mm. 42–44, “trumpet call”-like, martelé strokes (violin part).
58
Ex. 26a–b. Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis.
Ex. 26a. II. Scherzo, mm. 65–81, fast, “racing,” ascending and descending scales.
59
Ex. 26b. IV. Allegro con brio, mm. 66–71, fast cascading embellishments (see violin part).
60
IV
CONCLUSION
Prokofiev was a composer of paradoxes and dilemmas. Although animated by a fiery
desire to be regarded as a modern composer, his style was firmly rooted in tradition, often
recasting styles and genres from previous eras. Born in Russia, the young Sergei wanted to see—
and hear—the world, yet, he had difficulties to remain far from his homeland too long, hence the
numerous visits to the Soviet Union while living in the West (1918–1933). Although somewhat
disinterested in politics,1 Prokofiev always felt a strong sense of patriotism; he believed in the
grandeur of Russia and in its future as a nation. Prokofiev was Russian and very proud of his
origins and of the Russian culture. As he explained, while in the West:
Foreign air does not suit my inspiration, because I am Russian…. I have got to hear the
Russian language echoing in my ears. I have got to talk to people who are my own flesh
and blood, so that they can give me something I lack here—their songs—my songs.2
This explains many of Prokofiev’s choices and actions, including his extensive correspondence
with Myaskovsky, his eventual return to his homeland in 1933 despite the harsh Soviet regime,
and his unique lyricism and song-like melodic style. In the midst of growing political pressure,
1
Prokofiev divorced himself from politics in 1929, saying: “Music and politics are incompatible,
even mutually rejecting each other. A dedicated musician can exist with a sole interest in his art as a thing
in itself.” Prokofiev indeed refrained from joining unions or becoming involved in policy making, instead
focusing only on improving his artistry. See Victor Seroff, Sergei Prokofiev: A Soviet Tragedy. The Case
of Sergei Prokofiev, His Life & Works, His Critics and His Executioners (New York: Funk & Wagnalls,
1968), 164.
2
Ibid., 166.
61
Prokofiev’s non-political attitude revealed, in fact, a virtue. Paradoxically, although scholars
always describe the young Sergei as a rebel, the mature Prokofiev seemed to have dealt with
political oversight—and censure—relatively well. As Juliana Ossorguine wrote:
Prokofiev’s overall acceptance of the ideals established concerning Soviet music assured
him of the benefits of residing in the Soviet Union. He recognized the need and accepted
the challenge of writing music with a definite purpose. He also recognized the need to
write simply, yet originally. The key to his simplicity was found to be in the melody.3
Prokofiev indeed loved beautiful melodies, as proven by innumerable masterpieces, including
“Juliet’s Death” from Romeo and Juliet, the slow movement of his Second Violin Concerto, or
his Opp. 35bis and 94bis discussed above. According to the composer, music primarily “must be
melodious, moreover, the melody must be simple and comprehensible, without being repetitive
or trivial…. We must seek a new simplicity.”4 In the case of Prokofiev’s compositional output,
such a concept of simplicity, or “new simplicity,” translated itself into various musical aspects of
the past, whether musical styles, genres, forms, phrase structures, textures, common-practice
tonality, diatonicism, traditional instrumentation, or combinations of these. Alongside his
Opp. 35bis, 56, 94bis, and 115, Prokofiev’s own Toccata in D Minor, Op. 11 for piano (1912);
Symphony No. 1 in D Major, Op. 25 “Classical” (1917); Sinfonietta in A Major, Op. 5/48
(1909/29); Divertimento, Op. 43 (1925–29); and Sinfonia Concertante for Cello and Orchestra in
E minor, Op. 125 (1950–52) evince the composer’s taste for eighteenth-century’s musical idioms
as well as his admiration for the great composers of the past, including J. S. Bach, F. J. Haydn,
and W. A. Mozart.
3
Juliana Ossorguine, “Lyricism in the Music of Sergei Prokofiev as Illustrated by the Sonata
No. 2 for Violin and Piano” (M.M. thesis, Bowling Green State University, 1983), 9.
4
Sergei Prokofiev, Autobiography, Articles, Reminiscences, ed. S. I. Schlifstein, trans. Rose
Prokofieva (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1962), 84–85.
62
Apart from Prokofiev’s overt references to musical traditions in his Opp. 35bis, 56, 94bis,
and 115, these four violin compositions also feature the sounds of modernism, each in its own
distinct way—like branches stemming from the same tree trunk, yet reaching out in different
directions. In his Second Violin Sonata and Solo Violin Sonata, the composer synthesized the
neo-classical and modernist currents in a relatively peaceful manner, with modest harshness and
carefully controlled dissonances. These two sonatas sound in bright and transparent classical
tones: “the resolute optimism, emotional directness, and nearly total absence of irony are almost
startling in the context of this music.”5 On the other hand, Prokofiev’s Five Melodies and Sonata
for Two Violins offer a different encounter of traditionalism and modernism. Prokofiev’s Five
Melodies constitute a well-unified, coherent cycle that explores several prominent modernist
trends of the early twentieth century, most notably impressionism, exoticism, as well as jazz- and
blues-influenced sonorities.6 In his Sonata for Two Violins, Prokofiev considered the concept of
stylistic symbiosis in bold and conflicting terms—a composition strongly permeated by the
sounds of Soviet music.
Each of these four violin compositions represents a unique musical journey that
simultaneously revisits traditions of the past and pioneers a modern musical language. However,
beyond exploring these four violin works from the particular perspective of their neo-classical
roots and modernist attributes, one might pursue the inquiry a step further and coin the qualifying
5
Harlow, Sergei Prokofiev: A Biography, 421.
6
While in the West, Prokofiev lived in the United States and in France, which perhaps explains
his acquaintances with and taste for jazz/blues and impressionist music. Furthermore, jazz/blues-tinged
sonorities pertain not only to the first of his Five Melodies but also to the third movement of his Second
Violin Sonata, but in a contrasting manner: as opposed to jazz/blues sonorities created through the use of
non-functional harmony, extended tertian chords, and blue notes (i.e., on a vertical level), allusions to jazz
and blues occur on a horizontal level, created by a chromatic and quasi-hypnotic, “circling” melody with
a gently swinging rhythm. See Prokofiev, Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 2 in D Major, Op. 94bis, III.
Andante, mm. 35–65.
63
adjective “Prokofievan,” the same way that J. S. Bach’s, Mozart’s, or Puccini’s music contains a
little je ne sais quoi that makes it immediately recognizable. Likewise, one of the chief experts
on Prokofiev, Israel Nestyev, asserted, while writing about Prokofiev’s Op. 94bis, “It is
completely modern and typically Prokofievan in its harmonic thinking, its intricate interweaving
of figures and passages, and its distinctive lyricism.”7 Nestyev makes another pertinent
observation about Prokofiev’s neo-classical language, classifying his Op. 94bis as a piece in an
eighteenth-century style but with twentieth-century harmonic ideas.8
Prokofiev had a gift. Undoubtedly. His imaginative fusion of lyricism and modernism is
virtually unsurpassed among twentieth-century composers. Surely, a central aspect of
Prokofiev’s musical genius was his ability to transform the neo-classical/modernist duality into a
single and coherently synthesized musical style. Prokofiev extracted and united the best from the
past and the present, forging a perfectly balanced, symbiotic musical language—a bridge
between eras.
7
Israel Nestyev, Sergei Prokofiev. His Musical Life, trans. Rose Prokofieva (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1946), 345.
8
Ibid.
64
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashley, Patricia. “Prokofiev’s Piano Music: Line, Chord, and Key.” Ph.D. diss., University of
Rochester, 1963.
Austin, William W. Music in the 20th Century: From Debussy through Stravinsky. New York:
Norton & Company, 1966.
. “Prokofiev’s Fifth Symphony.” The Music Review 17 (1956): 205–220.
Bass, Richard. “Prokofiev’s Technique of Chromatic Displacement.” Music Analysis 7 (1988):

197–214.
Blok, Vladimir. Prokofiev. Materials, Articles, Interviews. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1978.
Carr, Maureen A. Multiple Masks: Neoclassicism in Stravinsky’s Works on Greek Subjects.

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
Gutman, David. Prokofiev. London: The Alderman Press, 1988.
Hanson, Lawrence, and Elisabeth Hanson. Prokofiev: The Prodigal Son, An Introduction to His
Life and Work in Three Movements. London: Cassell & Company, 1964.
Henderson, Lyn. “The Violin Concertos of Prokofiev.” The Music Review 54 (1993): 257–64.
Hepokoski, James, and Warren Darcy. Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and
Deformations in the Late Eighteenth-Century Sonata. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2006.
Hyde, Martha M. “Neoclassic and Anachronistic Impulses in Twentieth-Century Music.” Music

Theory Spectrum 18 (1996): 200–235.
Jaffé, Daniel. Sergey Prokofiev. London: Phaidon Press, 1998.
Katz, Adele. Challenge to Musical Tradition: A New Concept of Tonality. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1945.
Kaufman, Rebecca Sue. “Expanded Tonality in the Late Chamber Works of Sergei Prokofiev.”
Ph.D. diss., University of Kansas, 1987.
Mahar, William J. “Neo-classicism in the Twentieth Century: A Study of the Idea and Its
Relationship to Selected Works of Stravinsky and Picasso.” Ph.D. diss., Syracuse
University, 1971.
65
Messing, Scott. Neoclassicism in Music: From the Genesis of the Concept through the
Schœnberg/Stravinsky Polemic. Ann Arbor: U.M.I. Research Press, 1988.
Minturn, Neil B. “An Integral Approach to the Music of Sergei Prokofiev Using Tonal and Set
Theoretical Analytical Technique.” Ph.D. diss., University of Yale, 1988.
. The Music of Sergei Prokofiev. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
Moreux, Serge. “Prokofiev: An Intimate Portrait.” Tempo, New Series 11 (April 1949): 5–9.
Morgan, Robert. Twentieth-century Music. New York: Norton & Company, 1991.
Morris, Allan Scott. “The Wellsprings of Neo-classicism in Music: The Nineteenth-Century

Suite and Serenade.” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1998.
Nestyev, Israel V. Prokofiev. Translated by Florence Jonas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 1960.
. Sergei Prokofiev. His Musical Life. Translated by Rose Prokofieva. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1946.
Nice, David. Prokofiev: From Russia to the West 1891–1935. New Haven: Yale University Press,
2003.
Ossorguine, Juliana. “Lyricism in the Music of Sergei Prokofiev as Illustrated by the Sonata
No. 2 for Violin and Piano.” M.M. thesis, Bowling Green State University, 1983.
Oster, Ernst. “Re: A New Concept of Tonality (?).” Journal of Music Theory 4, no. 1 (April
1960): 85–98.
Press, Stephen D. Prokofiev’s Ballets for Diaghilev. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006.
Prokofiev, Sergei. Autobiography, Articles, Reminiscences. Edited by S. I. Schlifstein. Translated

by Rose Prokofieva. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1962.
. Five Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis. Boca Raton: Masters Music, 1995.
. Prokofiev by Prokofiev: A Composer’s Memoir. Edited by David Appel. Translated by

Guy Daniels. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1979.
. Sergei Prokofiev. Soviet Diary 1927 and Other Writings. Translated and edited by
Oleg Prokofiev and Christopher Palmer. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992.
. Sonata for Solo Violin, Op. 115. New York: G. Schirmer, 1983.
66
. Sonata for Two Violins, Op. 56. Edited by David Oistrakh. New York: G. Schirmer,
1983.
. Sonata No. 1 for Violin and Piano in F minor, Op. 80. Edited by David Oistrakh.
New York: International Music Company, 1960.
. Sonata No. 2 for Violin and Piano in D Major, Op. 94bis. Edited by David Oistrakh.
New York: International Music Company, 1958.
Redepenning, Dorothea. “Prokofiev, Sergey.” In The New Grove Dictionary of Music and
Musicians, edited by S. Sadie and J. Tyrrell, 20:404–23. 2nd. ed. London: Macmillan,
2001.
Rifkin, Deborah. “A Theory of Motives for Prokofiev’s Music.” Music Theory Spectrum 26
(2004): 265–89.
Robinson, Harlow. Sergei Prokofiev: A Biography. New York: Viking Penguin, 1987.
Salzer, Felix. Structural Hearing: Tonal Coherence in Music. New York: Dover Publications,
1982.
Samuel, Claude. Prokofiev. Translated by Miriam John. London: Calder & Boyars, 1971.
Savkina, Natalia. Prokofiev: His Life and Times. Translated by Catherine Young. Neptune City,
NJ: Paganiniana Publications, 1984.
Schipperges, Thomas. Prokofiev. Translated by J. M. Q. Davis. London: Haus Publishing, 2003.
Schonberg, Harold. The Lives of the Great Composers. 3rd. ed. New York: Norton & Company,
1997.
Scruton, Roger. The Aesthetics of Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Seroff, Victor. Sergei Prokofiev: A Soviet Tragedy. The Case of Sergei Prokofiev, His Life &
Works, His Critics and His Executioners. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1968.
Straus, Joseph N. Remaking the Past. Musical Modernism and the Influence of the Tonal
Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.
Taruskin, Richard. “Back to Whom? Neoclassicism as Ideology.” Nineteenth-Century Music 16

(1993): 286–302.
. Defining Russia Musically: Historical and Hermeneutical Essays. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1997.
67
van den Toorn, Pieter C. “Neoclassicism and Its Definitions.” In Music Theory in Concept and
Practice, edited by J. M. Baker, D. W. Beach, and J. W. Bernard, 131–56. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press, 1997.
. “Neoclassicism Revised.” In Music, Politics, and the Academy, 143–78. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1995.
Wang, Sha. “A Play of Style: Comparing and Contrasting Neoclassicism in Selected Piano Solo
Repertoire in the 1920s.” D.M.A. document, University of Cincinnati, 2006.
Whittall, Arnold. “Neo-classicism.” In The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians,
edited by S. Sadie and J. Tyrrell, 17:753–55. 2nd. ed. London: Macmillan, 2001.
68

Perspectives On The Symbiosis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Perspectives On The Symbiosis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perspectives On The Symbiosis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Four Violin Compositions by Sergei Prokofiev

Student Signature: Sooyoung Kim

This work and its defense approved by:

in partial fulfillment of the

DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS

in the Performance Studies Division

M.M., University of Cincinnati, 2003

Committee Chair: bruce d. mcclung, Ph.D.

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

understanding of how Prokofiev’s neo-classical approach to composition—so pronounced in his

large-scale works—operates in the intimate arena of his chamber music.

Op. 94bis (1943), due to time constraints.

1. Sergei Prokofiev and the Neo-classical Current ……………………………… 1

II. THE WEIGH OF THE PAST ……………………………………………………….... 11

1. Prokofiev’s Quest for a “New Simplicity” …………………………………… 11

2. Neo-classical Syntax, Texture, and Formal Designs …………………………. 17

III. LOOKING FORWARD ……………………………………………………………... 28

1. Beyond Harmonic Conventions ………………………………………………. 28

2. Musical Colors and Imagination ……………………………………………… 49

IV. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………… 61

Sonata for Two Violins in C, Op. 56

Sonata for Solo Violin in D Major, Op. 115

1. Sergei Prokofiev and the Neo-classical Current

Myaskosvky—who was to become a life-long friend and confident—and Nikolai Rimsky-

acquainted with controversial works like Stravinsky’s Le sacre du printemps, a composition

unstoppable desire to forge a modern idiom. This multi-faceted approach to composition

Sergei Diaghilev, Maurice Ravel, Igor Stravinsky, and Les Six.

(1917) positioned him at the forefront of this movement.

study and recognition.

related to Prokofiev’s expansion of the traditional harmonic language. In contrast to Neil

non-tonal analytical method. Nevertheless, it does contain several comments related to

Prokofiev’s manipulation of jazz- and blues-influenced sonorities, pentatonic and whole-tone

Melodies for Violin and Piano, Op. 35bis.

94bis, and 115.5

classical approach to composition in small-scale works, and to encourage violinists to explore in

a compromise failed, Prokofiev eventually recovered in California, where he made numerous,

and in France (1920–1933)—particularly that of jazz and French impressionist songs—

appreciate his unique neo-classical melodic style and pronounced lyricism.

qualities that these two works share.

Commissioned by the Soviet Committee on Artistic Affairs, Prokofiev began composing

“insufficiently represented in musical literature,”10 the composer said. Significantly, this is

who later reported:

Everything happened very quickly…. As [Prokofiev] suggested, I provided two or three

composition as a type of practice piece—an extended étude considerably less challenging

THE WEIGH OF THE PAST

1. Prokofiev’s Quest for a “New Simplicity”

and only six years before the composer’s death.

┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ antecedent ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛

┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ consequent ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛

almost uninterrupted succession of periodic two-measure units, which can be represented as

eighteenth-century musical compositions, particularly the keyboard sonatas of Domenico

Scarlatti, F. J. Haydn, and W. A. Mozart.

──────────────────────┐┌───────────────── A' ──────────────────┐

┌────────────────── B ──────────────────┐┌─────────── B' ───────

notes—greatly enhances this concise Allegretto leggero e scherzando’s “joking” character,

constantly playing with the listener’s expectations.