Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Prokofiev's Style: Romantic, Atonal, or What?

This may go nowhere, but somebody was asking about Prokofiev in the Facebook group Music Theory. I'll quote his question to set the scene:

OP: "What makes Prokofiev different from other Romantic composers? His music sounds facetious and eccentric to me, but I’m a beginner in music theory and I can’t explain what I hear- in particular, key changes that sound too informal for classical music, but that work nonetheless. Can anyone identify what’s going on in Prokofiev’s abrupt key changes that make them unique to him?"

So anyway, there's a lot of responses to this rather provocative post, some of which talk about how "contrived" Prokofiev sounds, or how his Classical Symphony is his only really accessible work. But nobody mentioned set theory. Until I did.

So far, I haven't had any direct responses, but I'll throw out this exchange just to see what you guys think:

Me: "From a music theory perspective, you can’t really “get” Prokofiev’s mature music without a basic understanding of set theory IMO. Or at least some knowledge of what it involves. The writings of Allen Forte are a good place to start."

Other Person: "Prokofiev is a 20th century composer, not a Romantic era composer."

Me: "The link below provides a nice, succinct précis of the principles of set theory. You can take virtually any Prokofiev mature work that's not clearly tonal (e.g. Peter and the Wolf or the Classical Symphony) and use sets/pitch classes and their permutations to gain insight into the "tonal" processes, sonorities, melodic germination, and large-scale harmonic characteristics and resonances that drive the developmental processes within each movement or section. In the last movement of the 7th Sonata, it is relatively easy to observe these processes as they evolve by means of highly differentiated yet organically coherent pitch classes used to generate the enormous tensions (and ironies) that build during the musical progress. It's almost as if Prokofiev was sarcastically demonstrating the principles of set theory before they had even been formulated.

As for the 20th-century/Romantic distinction, I think it's kind of meaningless. The second piano concerto is bursting with Romantic gestures and emotional impact, but it could never, ever, be confused with a composition by a 19th-century composer.

All this is IMO, just in case I should be accused of didacticism!

http://learnmusictheory.net/PDFs/pdffiles/06-10-SetTheorySimplified.pdf"

Obviously there's more to the FB thread than I've hinted at or quoted, some of it insightful, some not. However, I was really surprised that there was no mention of set theory as a key to interpreting and understanding Prokofiev's style of composition. Is that particular branch of music theory not very prevalent among non-academics in the United States? And if it's not, how does one describe Prokofiev's style adequately?

I would love to hear alternative ideas. Also, I think it's relevant to this forum if only because P wrote so much (and so well) for the piano.

I don't think you need anything like "set theory." At least not to explain what to me is the essence of Prokofiev.

I should note right away that I'm talking only about a very limited aspect of Prokofiev, and that I don't particularly like Prokofiev, and that it's about what I don't like about Prokofiev. It doesn't mean I don't like any of his music at all -- for example I like the last movement of the 7th Sonata, and I liked your playing of it! But I'm talking overall.

For me, a key thing about him is his chords. Notice, I didn't say "harmonies," I said chords, which is a simpler thing.

And, I suppose, it's sometimes also his sequence of notes in a melodic line, by which I mean particularly which one note sometimes follows a previous note.

Simply put: I don't like his chords, and I don't like his notes.

Which means, to put the underpinning of this negative utterance non-judgmentally, and potentially positively: There's something distinctive about his chords and about the sequences of notes in his melodic lines.

To me, those distinctive things are repellent. But, they're distinctive -- and, getting back to the "Other Person's" question -- very very very different from
"Romantic." In fact I'd have to say I disagree with him in calling Prokofiev a Romantic composer.

And, I don't know how to describe what I so dislike about his chords and occasional sequences of melodic notes. All I know is, as I've sometimes explained, I can't work on any Prokofiev piece, because I don't like the notes enough.

I dislike them.

It's not just a dislike for stuff that's dissonant, or "modern." Like, I have no such problem with Scriabin, even late Scriabin. I love working on late Scriabin, and part of what allows me to do that, especially considering how much time needs to be spent on every note and every chord, often merely just figuring out what they are, is that I love the notes, I love the chords, even when I'm playing them in isolation. Prokofiev's "chords" and "notes," I find too many of them just repellent.

Which means they're distinctive -- and very different than typical "Romantic," or else they wouldn't possibly strike me as they do. Hanslick, somewhat famously, wrote about Tchaikovsky's violin concerto that it was "music that stinks in the ear." I disagree with him about that -- I think his review stinks in the ear -- but that's kind of how a lot of Prokofiev strikes me.

More than you bargained for, eh....

I personally guarantee you 99% of people in America that have not attended a decent music school have ever heard of set theory, much less understand it.

To be completely, embarrassingly honest - I attended CCM for two years and finished up at Xavier under a great teacher, but would never claim to have a commanding grasp of set theory. At CCM it wasn't really studied Freshman or Sophomore years outside of some electives, and at Xavier there were simply no faculty who were really equipped to properly deal with it outside of my teacher - and she had much bigger problems with my playing to deal with than teaching me set theory (she would have been happy to if I had asked, but I didn't).

So yes - in answer to your question, I believe there is virtually zero awareness in non-academic circles that set theory even exists, let alone what it is.

This really struck home with me. I consider Prokofiev to be one of my "failings" as a pianist - I really do not get him, but can't put my finger on why. I enjoy Shostakovich. I like Scriabin. I like certain sections of Prokofiev's music or certain movements, as you do, but not most of it. It's not a dissonance issue - it is something else that is difficult for me to define, but I think you hit the nail on the head.

That being said, I am going to keep listening to him with frequency - so many composers that I at first did not understand, I later grew to love.

Prokofiev is awesome. Explore many of his works, from various aspects of his life, for all sorts of genres, styles, variety, etc. He was incredibly talented and prolific in many aspects.

You can find a thesis at the link below that has a great deal of material regarding harmonic analyses of Prokofiev's music, including references to set theory.

http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68119

Not at all. Less, actually.

You may be surprised to learn that I am very much -- but not completely -- in agreement with you on the difficulty that one confronts with Prokofiev. Like many people, I associated P with Romeo and Juliet, Peter and the Wolf, and the Classical Symphony before I realized he was one of "those" atonal guys. True story: I would listen patiently to the entire 7th Sonata just to hear the dive and the dramatic ascent right at the end of the third movement and then those three incredible Bbs. Wow! Every time. The end justified the means, or whatever. Likewise, with Romeo and Juliet, it was really only the big arpeggiated theme that got me going, although I do remember a movie version of the ballet that involved the most beautiful, sylphine Juliet imaginable, so there's that too. But, yeah, I wasn't sure what all the fuss was about.

My conversion has been incremental and slow. It's still not complete. And it has nothing to do with enjoyment of playing his piano music, which I find incredibly ungrateful and a perpetual struggle. It's difficult in ways that it sometimes doesn't need to be -- at least that's what I think when I'm learning it.

However, somewhere within that slow conversion there occurred a small quantum leap; it had to do with theory. It's a long story and I won't labor the point, but it was revelatory. In a nutshell, I started to notice things about the 1st movement of Prok 7 that I couldn't explain but was transfixed by. Lots of it had to do with the big sonorities in the middle section. However, there were these little interesting pivot points, and then, when I examined the harmony and the different tonalities implicit in the big declarative paragraphs of the movement, I knew I was looking at something remarkably coherent; great music in fact.

This all had to do with the pitch combinations. I was looking at authentic quasi-atonal yet cogent musical substance. It worked!

The last movement is much more transparent. It's almost like the pitch classes are being written up on a whiteboard! See below.

So, dude, I think you should investigate musical set theory, just because I think you would enjoy it. I think everybody should. It's a plausible, authentic method of analysis that actually could be applied to any music.

Prokofiev at his best! Check it out!

Except I think it's an area of study more appropriate to postgraduate curriculums than undergraduate. So right now it's not inappropriate in academia not to have it at the undergraduate level. (Jesus, how many double negatives can a sentence endure?)

The thing is, though, it's not that complicated -- if you are able to think mathematically -- and relatively easy to learn. The big problem, of course, is application. If you don't get why set theory relates to the Rite of Spring you have a problem.

SiFi: Very interesting reply!
Although, about your optimism (if that's the right word) that set theory or anything could help me along on Prokofiev, none of that will matter as long as I "don't like the notes."

BTW, we have to give you extreme kudos (which, as you probably know, is singular, but that doesn't take away from its quantity) for this brilliant little thing in there:


Please, everybody -- check that out!


I'm with you about that spot in the last mvt of #7.

Definitely going to check this out. Thanks for the reference.

.......let's see, "set theory":

Musical set theory provides concepts for categorizing musical objects and describing their relationships....

Nah, not interested.

I can't really bring a particularly in-depth dissection here, but in my personal opinion, according to my ears, Prokofiev was a very special composer, and possibly quite underrated and too easily dismissed.

His harmonic progressions and melodies can sometimes get way out there, while still retaining a solid foundation for one to follow. No one I've ever heard does this as well as him. Simultaneously slightly confusing, and yet always staying in a familiar place.

I was first introduced to Prokofiev with his violin sonatas, which are something really to behold. Music that makes one think "How the heck did we get from there to here" yet sounds completely correct.

I would say he bridges a gap between romanticism and atonality. He is both, essentially. His romanticism is slightly understated, and his atonality is experimental but careful and disciplined.

Check out a bit of Nikolai Petrov playing Prokofiev.

Having said that, Prokofiev is not for everyday listening, one has to be in the mood, I find. Unless it's something like Peter and the Wolf etc. in which case it's a bit more towards the milder end of his spectrum.

More interesting still, my friend, is your attention to detail. You read and absorbed the interminable nonsense I was writing and found the small witticism that I planted without any advertisement or expectation that it would be noticed. As my son would say, "You rich".

OK, so I'm trying to do my taxes, but this issue with Prokofiev has become a major thing. Do I like his music or do I not? I cannot think of any other composer about whom I am so ambivalent (with the possible exception of Perotin or Gesualdo). I think we should give the guy a fair trial. I don't know how to do a poll on this site, but we can do it in the old-fashioned way.

So here's the question. On balance, do you like or dislike Prokofiev's PIANO music? Yes or No.

+1

+1

I see I was wrong about you.

Zaphod: That was a brilliant post.
Even though we disagree 100%.

Actually we don't.
Even with the basic feeling about him that I described, I know what you mean about this, and you really nailed it:



Although, there was one thing you were dead wrong about, and I think everyone else would agree how wrong it was:




YES -- I definitely like or dislike it.

Prokofiev?

Awesome! Though when I first played his music (one of his Visions fugitives) for an ABRSM exam as a kid, it sounded so odd that I wanted to 'improve' it by replacing the wrong notes with the right ones (mine), except that I couldn't, because it was an exam piece......

But then, I heard Peter & The Wolf and the Classical Symphony, and that sounded OK, if sometimes weird. However, I got attuned to his sound world, and after I heard his piano sonatas - especially No.8 played by Andrei Gavrilov, which blew me away -, I couldn't get enough of the War Sonatas, such that I even bought the scores and tried to sight-read through them before I had sufficient technique to play them

And his chamber and orchestral scores followed suit - piano & violin concertos, symphonies, violin & flute sonatas. And his amazing score for Alexander Nevsky. Talk about lush romanticism and filmic splendour - even Korngold can't beat that.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1k-D1EoAb8