Download pdf - Prokofiev 7 Analysis

8/13/2019 Prokofiev 7 Analysis

1/66

Freedom in Interpretation and Piano Sonata No. 7

by Sergei Prokofiev

-A comparison of two approaches to piano interpretation-

Nikola Markovi

Supervisor

Knt !"nsberg

This Masters Thesis is carried out as a part of the education

at the University of Agder and is therefore approved as a part

of this education. However, this does not imply that the

University answers for the methods that are used or the

conclusions that are drawn.

#niversity of Agder$ %&'%.

Fac(ty of Fine Arts

)epartment of *sic


2/66


3/66

Table of Contents

A+S!,A!............................................................................................................................

AKN/012)32*2N!S.......................................................................................................

' Introdction....................................................................................................................4

'.' Abot the topic........................................................................................................4

'.% ,esearch 5estion and aim for the pro6ect ............................................................4

'. *ethods..................................................................................................................7

'.8 Strctre of the thesis.............................................................................................9

% !he composer$ the performers and what (ies between....................................................:

%.' Prokofiev ; (ife and creation...................................................................................:

%.% Sviatos(av ,ichter and 3(enn 3o(d ....................................................................'

%.%.' Sviatos(av ,ichter ; tragedy and power...................................................'8

%.%.% 3(enn 3o(d ; ecstasy and inte((ect.........................................................'4

%.%. Abot the recordings.................................................................................'9

%. Interpretation and freedom...................................................................................':

Ana(ysis of Sergei Prokofievposition?opening.....................................................................%7

b= )eve(opment..............................................................................%9

c= ,ecapit(ation............................................................................&

d= oda..........................................................................................%

.%.% Ana(ysis of the performances....................................................................

a= !he time ; tempo and agogics...................................................

3


4/66

b= !he sond ; dynamics$ po(yphony$ artic(ation and peda((ing....7

c= /verview and conc(sions..........................................................:

.%. Performer


5/66


6/66

1 Introduction.

1.1 About the topic

Serei Pro!ofie" /01/%/1-32 was one of the most interestin composers in the

Twentieth century. is piano sonatas are the main part of his creation for the piano, and

amon them, the Se"enth Piano Sonata is one the most interestin and most successful wor!s.

It is a fa"ourite amon performers and audiences ali!e.

lenn ould /135%/1052 and S"iatosla" 6ichter /1/-%/1172 are amon the reatest

pianists since the in"ention of sound%recordin technoloies. They represent two "ery

different approaches to classical music performance.

Interpretation is a widely%discussed area. The field of hermeneutics and the fields ofcommunication and lanuae music lanuae and notation, in this case2 are enormous, and

the research and discussion in this paper will ha"e a narrower approach to piano performance

itself, with no ambition to dwell much deeper into these and other wider fields.

1. Re!e"rch #ue!tion "nd "i$ %or the pro&ect

I ha"e decided to contribute to the important uestion of freedom in interpretation by$

a2 presentin a demonstration of my own analyses of performances by two renowned

pianists, ascertainin the elements of correlation and disparity between the performances and

the score and drawin certain conclusions from their playin2,

b2 presentin the findins of these analyses in a systematic way, and discussin the

reasons behind the differences, and

c2 explainin my own choices in interpretation of this piece. I belie"e that my own

findins while researchin and practisin the piece are a "ery "aluable tool for any research

on the topic that I may conduct.

8hat I aim to disco"er by performin these actions is insiht into the different ways

of approachin the written text, and moti"ation in different performers for the interpretati"e

chanes of the written text.

There are many challenes in this process. 9ne of the main ones in uncertainty of any

"erbal interpretation of a musical content. #"en the simplest and most basic elements are

always up to discussion and re%interpretation, and it is "ery difficult to ma!e any final

:


7/66

decisions. The other main difficulty is the complexity of Pro!ofie";s lanuae and multitude

of modes of expression.

I chose this topic because it enables me to connect areas of my reatest expertise,

which are$

a2 piano performance and its aesthetics. I am currently in my final of the


8/66

1.( Structure o% the the!i!.

The thesis consists of four main parts. The first one, Introduction, brins an o"er"iew

of the topic, research oals and tools of research, as well as the moti"ation for the choice of

topic. The second part lays the round for better understandin of the composer, the pianists

and the process and challenes of interpretation. The third part consists of data collection and

presentation, throuh analysis of music form and music interpretation, and personal

obser"ation of the interpretation problems. The fourth part brins an o"er"iew of the findins

with "isual representation, and the discussion about these findins and their meanin. The

fifth part consists of a summary of the whole thesis and some end mar!s, includin personal

experience of this research, and some other personal "iews, as well as some possibilities for

future research.

0


9/66

The co$po!er) the per%or$er! "nd *h"t +ie! bet*een.

.1 ,ro-o%ie / +i%e "nd cre"tion

Serei Pro!ofie" was a prolific composer. e was eually adept in composin ballets,

symphonies, concertos for different instruments, and solo piano wor!s.

Pro!ofie" was born in >pril /01/ in the "illae of Sontso"!a, which is in =!raine

today, but was a part of the 6ussian #mpire at that time. e was raised in a musical

en"ironment$ his mother was an ambitious amateur pianist, and she planted the lo"e for

serious music, and disreard to say the least2 of any !ind of ClihtD music she also tauht

him elementary music theory, as well as basic piano playin techniue2. This seed too! root

in him "ery early, so he wrote his first music piece at the ae of -, and he started reular

piano lessons with his mother at the ae of se"en. Still, e"en thouh he ob"iously was a

wunderkind, his parents still tried to i"e him a normal childhood, and a"oid ma!in a

fachidiot out of him. Throuhout his childhood, he continued de"elopin musically at an

astonishin rate, which led to his admittance to the St. Petersbur Eonser"atory in /1F4, as a

student of composition, with >natoly 'yado" as his composition teacher. e was only /3 at

the time, and he had already composed a number of pieces, includin a sonata, a symphony

and e"en an opera/.

is musical spirit thri"ed in the en"ironment of cultural abundance that St. Petersbur

had to offer, and he impro"ed reatly, both as a pianist and as a composer. ere he ot in

contact with some "ery important influences, includin >lexander Scriabin and Serei

6achmaninoff, which were, contrary to popular belief, not Pro!ofie";s stylistic arch%enemies.

e differed from 6achmaninoff more than from Scriabin, but only in treatment of the piano

as an instrument, and in musical lanuae, while bein connected to him throuh the 6ussian

type of lyricism, which he used in many of his wor!s. e e"en stated to 'yado" that one of

his fa"ourite composers was Tchai!o"s!y, the epitome of 6ussian musical lyricism. >nother

important influence is Nicolai 6ims!y%+orsa!o", e"en thouh Pro!ofie";s position towards

him was somewhat ambiuous and fluctuatin.

Burin his composition studies, Pro!ofie" continued impro"in as a pianist, and he by

the time he raduated, he was eually ac!nowleded as a composer and as a performer. =pon

/ The biblioraphic facts about Pro!ofie" in this and other pararaphs unless stated differently2 are from

6obinson;s bioraphy of the composer 6obinson, 5FF5.2

1


10/66

finishin his composition studies, Pro!ofie" continued studyin piano and conductin. e

started studyin piano with >nna #sipo"a, a celebrated pianist and pedaoue ? Cthe prima

donna of Petersbur piano teachersD 6obinson, 5FF5, p. :/2 in /1F1, and it is certain that

this period was particularly beneficial for him as a pianist. is teacher in conductin was

Nicolai Tcherepnin, who told him immediately that he was not predestined to be a conductor,

but that he would help him to become sufficiently adept to be able to conduct his own wor!s

well. This plan turned out to be more ambitious than expected, and Pro!ofie" ne"er did

"enture deep into conductin, apart from occasionally conductin premiGres of his orchestral

wor!s.

It is no wonder that Pro!ofie" has created such a uantity of piano wor!s, for his

pianistic career flourished reatly in these years, and he had the chance to perform many of

his piano pieces himself. is understandin of the piano was ettin deeper and deeper, and

his "ery specific treatment of the instrument, both as a composer and as a pianist, could

become e"en more indi"idual and colourful, as his proficiency as a performer increased. e

premiGred most of the piano wor!s that he composed in this period. >fter all, the main reason

for enrollin in these prorams at the Eonser"atory was to ma!e him able to perform his own

wor!s proficiently. In /1/4, he won the Eonser"atory piano competition C@attle of the

pianosD, performin his Airst Piano Eoncerto.

The Airst 8orld 8ar did not seem to ha"e a reat effect on Pro!ofie", and he

continued in his endea"ours, almost unsha!en. @ut, the 6e"olutions of /1/7 were a different

story altoether, namely the 9ctober 6e"olution the first one, in Aebruary, was actually

relati"ely con"enient to him and his family2. The @olshe"i!s came to power, and named

6ussia the first socialist state in the world. The turbulence that followed affected Pro!ofie";s

life in a much reater extent than the 8ar. #"en so, /1/7 was one of his most producti"e

years. e composed, amon other wor!s, his Airst Symphony, and Piano Sonatas No. 3 and

4. e a"oided the most earth%shatterin part of the post%re"olutionary e"ents by mo"in away

in /1/0, alternatin between =S>, Arance, #nland and ermany. 9riinally planned as a

few month tour mainly pianistic2, it turned into years, and e"en more than a decade. Burin

this emiration, he produced many important wor!s, includin his Second, Third and Aourth

symphonies, CThe 'o"e Aor Three 9ranesD, Aourth and Aifth Piano Eoncerto, and the Aifth

Piano Sonata.

8hen he came bac! to 6ussia in /135, he didn;t settle down immediately. e spent

/F


11/66

almost eual time in 6ussia now =SS62 and the 8est for the next se"eral years, decidin to

stay in =SS6 permanently in /13:. The situation in his homeland had chaned drastically by

then, Stalin was in power, and was creatin more and more of a dictatorship. There was a

reat di"ision in the artistic world, between those who wished for an e"en stricter ideoloical

limitation of art, and those who thouht that politics and art should not mix in any

circumstances. Ne"ertheless, politics influenced art more and more o"er time, may this

re"iew of Bmitri Shosta!o"ich;s opera C'ady fter all, he was "ery capable in business and diplomatic

issues. @ut, he had another thin comin.

5 6obinson, 5FF5, p. 3/-

3 6obinson, 5FF5, p. 3/:

//


12/66

>fter his reat success with CPeter and the 8olfD and before another reat success

music for Serei #iseinstein;s film C>lexander Ne"s!iD2, he wrote se"eral wor!s which

remained unpublished, and weren;t performed at least not for a lon time2, includin a

6e"olution%lorifyin CEantata for the Twentieth >nni"ersary of 9ctoberD, which was an

ob"ious political mo"e, but he did not produce the expected effect on the reime, because

they thouht it did not present the fathers of the 6e"olution in an appropriate liht.

C>lexandar Ne"s!iD cantata, thouh, bouht a "ery ood place for Pro!ofie" in the

o"ernment;s eyes, at least for a period of tome. The cantata was made by ad(ustin the score

for the film of the same title, and it had epic proportions.

The next bi pro(ect was the opera CSemyon +ot!oD. This opera was to be produced

and directed by a close personal friend and colleaue of Pro!ofie";s, Kse"olod


13/66

which was intended as a tribute to eoria, Stalin;s homeland, in /147. Stalin saw the opera

and ot reatly anered by Chistorical inaccuraciesD4, and this was a ood enouh reason for

>ndrei Lhdano", a hih o"ernment official former chairman of the So"iet =nion2, to act

upon this aner and ban the opera from public performance. This was, once more, a

precedent that opened the door for a new tihtenin of the censorship rope, and the creation

of the famous term CformalismD, which was used as a reason to ban hundreds of wor!s in the

followin period. >ccusations of CformalismD poured down on many composers, amon

others or firstly2 Pro!ofie", Shosta!o"ich, Ni!olay


14/66

all o"er the world, and wasn;t to be found in a recordin studio "ery often and was not the

reatest fan of studio recordin2, while ould withdrew himself completely from the li"e

performin, and continued communicatin with his hue audience exclusi"ely throuh

recordins and inter"iews, radio shows and so on, but ne"er aain concerts2& ould started

his formal music education at an early ae, while 6ichter was larely self%tauht& ould was

a lone wolf, an outcast, an eccentric, he barely had a social life worth mentionin, while

6ichter led a "ery rich social life, it seems that he had uite a warm and embracin

en"ironment about him.

@oth of these pianists had "ery specific "iews towards performin, and "ery personal

poetics uidelines. These two poetics are uite different to each other, as we will see throuh

the analysis of their performances.

There are many other notable recordins of this piece, but I excluded them based on

one of the followin reasons$

a2 I find it is not "ery interestin to compare two pianists comin from the same

cultural milieu, so that;s why I had to choose at least one non%6ussian pianist. I couldn;t

compare, for example, Kladimir orowit and @oris @erman.

b2 I a"oided choosin li"e pianists, because it is easier to study a performer;s

aesthetics and poetics, as well as understand them fully if they ha"e already finished their life

cycle.

c2 I chose pianists which interpretations ha"e been discussed to a reater extent than

most. There is not nearly as much written or as profound and comprehensi"e2 about most

other pianists as about these two.

..1 Si"to!+" Richter / tr"0ed "nd po*er

S"iatosla" Teofilo"ich 6ichter was born in /1/- in Lhitomir, today;s =!raine, to apianist father and mother-. The mother, >nna Pa"lo"na 6ichter, didn;t continue playin the

piano seriously after her studies, while his father !ept performin and teachin until the end

of his life. >s a younster, he showed almost no interest in performin on the piano, but li!ed

to siht%read music. is father attempted to teach him at first, but soon realied there was no

effect. The youn 6ichter wanted to do thins his own way, or not to do them at all. is

- The bioraphic data about 6ichter in this chapter and others is ta!en from the bioraphy by +arl >ae6asmussen, and the film by @runo


15/66

extraordinary musical abilities, almost unprecedented in music history, let him learn himself

the piano to a point where he could play most of @eetho"en;s Sonatas. e proressed soon to

bein able to read complicated orchestral and operatic scores, all of them a prima vista.

C>pparently, he was not primarily interested in playin the piano. e used the piano

the way we use a EB or an fter all his reat successes and a rich life, we see him in the inter"iews made for


16/66

one of these inter"iews, which were conducted only se"eral months before 6ichter;s death,

that he says the famous, hauntin words$ CI ne"er really li!ed myselfD. This statement is the

final expression of the traedy and inner dissatisfaction he always felt and expressed in so

many ways, e"en thouh he ne"er seemed depressed, he was hihly functionin and social

and had extreme willpower and determination.

8e can illustrate 6ichter;s "iews on performance by (uxtaposin ould;s words about

6ichter;s performance of Schubert Piano Sonata in @%flat part from ha"in perfect pitch, he had a reat

7 @oth citations from 6asmussen, 5FF5, p. 5F0 The bioraphic data on lenn ould in this chapter and others is deri"ed from two boo!s$ Clenn ould$ >

life and "ariationsD by 9tto Ariedrich and Clenn ould$ The ecstasy and traedy of eniusD by Peter A.9stwald.

1 9stwald /1172, p. --

/:


17/66


18/66

time, and, of course, no tools to sa"e the performances for future enerations. These facts

ma!e @aroue music the most e"asi"e for interpretation studies, and that is why the style of

playin @aroue wor!s chanes so often, almost with e"ery eneration of pianists.

The reasons that made ould popular as a @ach performer ? freshness, in"enti"eness

and clarity of polyphony ? are the reasons why he is so widely disputed as a performer of

other styles. e performed e"erythin by re%in"entin the music, and puttin many new

elements into the pieces he played, and he put so much emphasis to the polyphony that it

clouded other aspects of the pieces he played.

e, unli!e 6ichter, was a man of words, and he pro"ed that extensi"ely throuhout his

life. e was "ery elouent and "ery !nowledeable, but he ne"er seemed too eaer to put that

facility of communication to actual use, by de"elopin close relationships with people.


19/66

way as many performances by I"o Poorelich.

8ith 6ichter, the situation is uite different. 6ichter hasn;t made any studio recordins

of the Se"enth Sonata, but there are many unauthoried li"e recordins, of which some ha"e

been published by music production companies. >ll the recordins I heard and that means

most of them that are diitally accessible2 share "ery similar interpretati"e concepts, so the

choice was not as important as it was with ould. There is no particular reason why I chose

this one, apart from the loistic reasons, it was the easiest to obtain this recordin.

ere is a "ery important point that will be re"isited later in this thesis$ ould played

wor!s "ery differently when he had a choice to record them twice, and made a point out of

playin them differently, while 6ichter mostly !ept his interpretati"e choices for the pieces

he played throuhout his performin career.

.' Interpret"tion "nd %reedo$

Areedom of the performer to ad(ust the score has chaned reatly o"er the centuries,

and it was usually considered as CstyleD, which means that a performer which has CstyleD was

able to sense andor deduce how to interpret the written text, f. ex. how much ornamentation a

piece needed in @aroue harpsichord music2, or how much rubato was allowed in

6omanticism2. This was especially important in the @aroue era, when composers for

!eyboard instruments, at least2 often wrote a simple Cs!eletonD of a mo"ement, and it was not

only allowed, but expected of the performer to add ornamentations or cadenas of his own.

Then came a period of decreased freedom ? Elassicism. 'udwi "an @eetho"en, for

example, forbade all chanes to his score, e"en the slihtest manipulation in tempo or

dynamics. 6omanticism brouht a new freedom, throuh the wor!s of pianistscomposers,

especially Aran 'ist and Siismond Thalber. If we loo! at twentieth%century music, we

can see an unprecedented attention to details in scores of many composers, especiallycomposers of the so%called Second Kiennese School, but also yQry 'ieti and others. This

oes to pro"e that their expectations were more towards strict followin of the score, than

freedom in interpretation.

Pro!ofie";s scores are, howe"er, an exception from this rule, which is particularly

surprisin, considerin his, one could almost state, loathin of 6omanticism in music e"en

thouh he was, of course, "ery much influenced by it2, and his deep admiration for Elassical

style, especially form. This lac! of instructions e"ident in Pro!ofie";s scores in eneral, is

/1


20/66

also apparent in the Se"enth Sonata, and it has one ob"ious implication$ performances of this

piece are "ery different from each other, e"en more so than performances of a @ach;s piece,

e"en thouh @ach wrote e"en less instructions than Pro!ofie". The reason for this is that there

is an established way that @ach;s music Cshould be playedD it chanes, thouh, throuh

different periods with different trends in performin2 than how Pro!ofie";s should, stemmin

from two facts$ the first one bein that the effect of the time that has passed since @ach wrote

his wor!s in which the interpretation issues of his wor!s were discussed extensi"ely and

deeply2, and the other bein that Pro!ofie" belons to a certain style or tendency much less

then @ach, because the twentieth century brouht a reater stylistic di"ersity than imainable

in any of the pre"ious eras in the history of art. @ut, as @aroue music was seen as

substantially more diffuse stylistically in it;s time then we may percei"e it today, it is possible

that the stylistic differences that we see as arantuan nowadays may seem trifles in a century

or two.

enerally, in performin, there is "ery often a uestion that we come down to$ Cow

much is too muchD how much freedom, that is2. 9ne may choose to turn to one of the three

main sources to sol"e this uestion presumin the composer is not amon the li"in2$

carefully examinin the score and all the details in it includin different editions, re"isions,

autoraphs, an so on2, readin and learnin of the composer;s intentions in creation and his

artistic credo, and listenin to performers one miht consider established or trustworthy, and

disco"erin inspiration and suestions for one;s own interpretation of the score.

It is beneficial to establish a distinction between the three main types of chanes to the

text itself, and I will name e"ery type, facilitatin their later use. The first one is "ddition,

and it is fairly common, and at least in a certain uantity2 ine"itable, e"en thouh it can

ma!e the final result o far away from what is written. I will use this term for both the

additions comin out of the implications that the composer made, and those that are a purely

indi"idual idea by the performer. The second type is "+ter"tion, which encompasses all the

actions that are in disareement with clear wishes stated by the composer. The third type is

probably the least common$ e2c+u!ion, when a performer simply disreards a mar!in by the

composer, and continues playin as if that mar! wasn;t in the score//.

@asically, the less detailed the score is, the more freedom is left to the performer a

// 8e must be careful to ma!e the distinction between alteration and exclusion, because sometimes it is not"ery clear, exclusion doesn;t mean followin the instructions partially, or doin the opposite to the

instructions, it means i0norin0 it completely.

5F


21/66

positi"e feat from the performers; point of "iew2, but he has less uidance in his choices, and

has less firm round on which he can build his interpretation which is the neati"e side2. >s

a performer, I can say that it truly is much more complicated to ma!e interpretati"e choices

when the score is not detailed, but it is also much more rewardin. That is one of the reasons I

find Pro!ofie";s music so rewardin to me as a performer, and so challenin as well.

5/


22/66

' An"+!i! o% Ser0ei ,ro-o%ie3! ,i"no Son"t" no. 4

This followin section is the central section of the thesis, and is a product of analytic

processes and in"estiation. It consists of a bac!round of the wor!, followed by one section

for each mo"ement. #ach of these sections contents an o"er"iew of form, followed by

analyses of interpretations by S"iatosla" 6ichter and lenn ould. These analyses will be

separated into two cateories$ a2 macro% and micro%timin issues$ tempo and aoics, and b2

issues of sound$ dynamics, polyphony, articulation, pedallin.

These sections will be followed by o"er"iews for each mo"ement2 of the different

aspects of interpretation and repercussions on the performance as a whole, and a conclusion

also for e"ery mo"ement indi"idually2 about the meanin of these aspects, possiblemoti"ation and (ustification. The final section for each mo"ement will be an insiht from a

performer;s perspecti"e$ arumentation for my personal "iews of e"ery mo"ement, and

(ustification of my own interpretati"e decisions which are documented on my EB recordin,

accompanyin this thesis2.

'.1 The Seenth Son"t"

Pro!ofie";s magnum opus in composin for the piano are his nine mature Piano

Sonatas he also wrote six early Sonatas2. e published nine Sonatas, started writin his

Tenth Sonata, and also planned an ele"enth. 9ut of all his piano sonatas, the ones that are

most unanimously acclaimed are the Second Sonata, and the three war Sonatas. The three

latter wor!s ha"e been written durin Second 8orld 8ar, and they brin an atmosphere of

anxiety, fear, and traedy, but also cynicism towards Stalin;s CunifyinD omnipotence and

tyranny.

>mon them, the Se"enth Sonata is the clearest in structure and musical messae, and

also the shortest. This Sonata is the most performed one as well, probably because of a

mesmeriin effect it creates for most audiences. It is much clearer in form than the other

two, yet much more obscure in lanuae/5. 8here the Sixth expresses predominantly anxiety

/5 #specially tonality and tonal centres ? often there are none, and e"en when there is a tonality or a tonalcentre at least, it is obscured more or less by polyphony, added notes, freuent modulation and unusual chord

relations. The exception bein, ob"iously, the Second mo"ement.


23/66

in expectin the full terror of a world%wide conflict, and the #iht presents, in a way, an

aftermath of it, the Se"enth Sonata brins forward the menacin, "icious and malicious

machinery of a reat army presumably the Nai forces2, and the emptiness that is left after

the battle has stopped. The piece was premiGred by S"iatosla" 6ichter, and here are his own

impressions$

C8ith this wor! we are brutally pluned into the anxiously threatenin atmosphere of

a world that has lost its balance. Ehaos and uncertainty rein. 8e see murderous

forces ahead. @ut this does not mean that what we li"ed by before thereby ceases to

exist. 8e continue to feel and lo"e. Now the full rane of human emotions bursts

forth. Toether with our fellow men and women, we raise a "oice in protest and share

the common rief. 8e sweep e"erythin before us, borne alon by the will for

"ictory. In the tremendous strule that this in"ol"es, we find the strenth to affirm

the irrepressible life%force.D/3

There is another interestin opinion about the essence of expression in this Sonata and

its atmosphere. Pro!ofie" could, ob"iously, ma!e no ob(ection to the mentioned horrific act

of ll these wor!s are

extremely "aried in enre, theme and techniue. Met they are ale lin!ed by one and the same

idea ? they all treat of


24/66

StatesD/-.

The wor! is composed in three mo"ements, with a classic tempo di"ision$ fast%slow%

fast. The Airst mo"ement ?Allegro inquieto is, clearly, the point of structural ra"ity in this

piece and, as such, brins by far the most complexity and the reatest wealth of details and

the biest rane of expression. It is also the lonest, it lasts almost as lon as the two other

mo"ements combined at least in most performances2. It is the most ambiuous in form, as

well, and the most di"erse in lanuae and texture.

The term CinuietoD means restless, uneasy, anxious. This feelin of anxiety is

persistent in this mo"ement and is masterfully built up to a climax of restlessness in the

Eoda. The mo"ement is written in :0 and 10 second sub(ect2 time, and ma!es extensi"e

use of the rhythmical pattern of uarter%note ? eiht%note, which ma!es the mo"ement so

dri"in and full of internal enery.

The mo"ement has two contrastin materialsthemes which are not only contrastin in

!ey and expression, but also in tempo and meter. The mo"ement is "ery complex in musical

lanuae and compositional techniue, and there are complex polyphonic sections. The

de"elopment of music material throuh the mo"ement is most intricate and creati"e. In this

mo"ement, as in many other wor!s, Pro!ofie" shows his unmatched talent for creatin a

seamless hybrid of the "ery old and the "ery new. 8hile the form is closer to one of


25/66

towards Stalinrad this Sonata was finished and premiGred durin the @attle of Stalinrad,

which is estimated to ha"e caused more than a million casualties2. It is certainly meant to

induce a sense of ine"itability and carelessness the character mar!in at the beinnin ?

Precipitato instructs the performer to play impetuously, forcefully and without second

thouhts/:2.

8hen performin this piece, a pianist needs to sol"e many problems. The first

problem is the technical and musical complexity of the wor!. It demands a "ery hih le"el of

pianistic "irtuosity, but also a "ery !een ear, and a reat sense of rhythm and tempo, topped

with a "ery wide rane of piano dynamics, touch and phrasin. Then comes the problem of

learnin and performin a barely tonal piece ? there are less Csafety beltsD than performers

usually ha"e.

The last important problem is one that is enerally tied to Pro!ofie";s wor!s ? lac! of

detailed instructions to the performer.


26/66

accepted and used boo! on the sub(ect music form analysis in this country2 is CNau!a o

muiV!im oblicimaD by B. S!o"ran and K. PeriVi) CScience of music formD, it has not been

published in #nlish yet2.

%Sentence$ C> term adopted from linuistic syntax and used for a complete musical

idea, for instance a self%contained theme& a sentence is enerally defined as the sum of two or

four phrases arraned in a complementary manner and endin with a perfect cadence. It

therefore has much the same meanin as WperiodX, thouh it lac!s the flexibility of the latter

term, bein restricted to dance%li!e and other symmetrically built musical statements. It is

sometimes useful to treat WsentenceX as an intermediary term between WphraseX and WperiodX.D/7

%Period$ C> musical period has been compared with a sentence, or period, in rhetoric.

Larlino, inLe istitutioni harmoniche/--02, associated the two concepts when he described

the cadence as apunto di cantilena, which could not appear until the sense of the underlyin

text had been completed p.55/2& in this sense a period, howe"er short or lon, extends until

its harmonic action has come to a close. ...2Symmetry pro"ides another definin element in

period structure. Eomplementary fiures and phrases establish a reular pattern of mo"ement

that allows the listener to anticipate the final point of arri"al in a self%contained unit, for

example the last bar of the theme or a "ariation in a theme and "ariations mo"ement.D /0

%Aramentary structure$ a self%standin part of form that does not fit all2 the criteria to

be named a sentence or a period.

%9pen sentenceperiod$ a sentenceperiod with an inconclusi"e cadena, endin on a

dominant chord, or some other chord. In order to be pronounced an open sentenceperiod, a

sement of music needs to ha"e other rele"ant criteria present in a sufficient manner. The

exception is a modulatin period, in which the second sentence does not need to ha"e a

stroner cadena one of the main criteria for a period2, the fact that the second sentence

modulates ma!es the endin stroner in effect than the beinnin.

I won;t o into more detail concernin other specific exceptions of the presented rules.

I used two outside sources for dialectic processin of my analytical findins. The first

one is a Boctoral thesis by 6ebecca


27/66


28/66

by a half%bar modulatin connection. The third sentence is a "aried repetition of the first, and

this whole section ends in bar /-/.

The di"ision between the second sub(ect and the start of de"elopment is disputable.


29/66

b6 Dee+op$ent

This section radually re%introduces the moti"ic, constructional and dynamical

ualities of the first sub(ect. In analysis by


30/66

#xample 4 bars /:4%/042

c6 Rec"pitu+"tion

The first sub(ect is formally and tonally e"en less stable and decisi"e in recapitulation

then it was in the exposition. It bears the mar!in ''Allegro inquieto come prima'', which

ma!es it easier to pinpoint the exact beinnin of this section to bar /05. The form is similar,

but e"en more dissol"ed and obscure, with interpolations that reatly reduce consistency of

form. I found a "ery interestin solution to the problem of form in this recapitulation. In this

appearance of the first sub(ect, we can find reminiscence of sections " and b from the

exposition of the first sub(ect, but, section "is not stated fully, it is only brouht thematically,

and not formally. The missin part of section "actually does appear, but only in the Eoda. In

my opinion, Pro!ofie" still felt the need for analoue and cyclic form%buildin, but he also

wanted to ma!e the recapitulation e"en less rounded on the micro plan2 and less clear than

the exposition, and he found a way to ma!e peace between these two needs by di"idin the

material of the first sub(ect between the recapitulation of the first sub(ect and the Eoda.

3F


31/66

It is, howe"er, completely (ustified to choose the opposite explanation, that the

composer used some of the elements of the exposition in the de"elopment in the part that I

consider as the recapitulation of the first sub(ect2, and re"ersed the recapitulation, so that the

second sub(ect comes first, and then the first sub(ect in the part that I consider to be the

Eoda2, as @erman claims5F. ere, the recapitulation is missin section b completely, but

section "is brouht much more clearly, in terms of form. >nother explanation is that only the

second sub(ect is present in the recapitulation, and that the elements of the first sub(ect in the

de"elopment section and the Eoda are not sufficient to label either one of them as the

recapitulation of the first sub(ect5/.

Aor me, these solutions, thouh clearly plausible, brin more problems in findin the

exact formal loic of the composer than the one I chose, but, as it usually is with music form,

no one can or at least, no one should2 claim he possesses the final word in analysis of a

certain wor!. 9f course, there are many examples of straiht%forward conception of music

form, but it is a eneral rule that the reatest composers a"oided composin Cby the boo!D as

much as they could, "ery ood examples are @ach;s fuues or


32/66

d6 Cod"

The Eoda bars 3-1%4/52 brins bac! the oriinal tempo and the primary motif, which

is this time brouht in a polyphonic settin, and the ideas are enerally e"en more shredded

and inconclusi"e, they are brouht in a primiti"e, elementary form. ere, the imained

protaonist of this musical narration becomes so aitated and torn apart, that he is not e"en

tryin "ery hard to finish his sentences any more, it is simply a picture of anxiety and

disorder. The mo"ement ends in a moc!in of the classical lanuae code$ we finally see a

ma(or triad of @%flat, for the first time in the whole mo"ement. This cannot be a proof of

tonality, and doe! notput the whole sonata in @%flat ma(or, e"en thouh it seems intuiti"ely

correct. The whole tonal pattern of this Sonata includin the ostinato fiure in the bass in the

final mo"ement, with persistent accents on the @%flat, which will be discussed later in the

thesis2 is a per"ersion of the classic sonata code, a deliberate stylistic play by Pro!ofie", a

nod of sorts to the traditional sonata. This is what neoclassicism is about$ imitatin the

classical and, in some interpretations, any stylistic era2 code, ma!in homagge to it, re%

interpretin, but also moc!in it55. This "iew on historical influences in style later became the

foundation of post%modernism but the post%modernists applied it not only to style, but also to

literal musical uotes, which they used, and made them a leitimate source of composin

material2.

55 CThe history and e"olution of the term in all its aspects ha"e been traced by


33/66

Sche$"tic repre!ent"tion o% the %or$

#YP9SITI9N /%/-/2 B#K#'9P


34/66

There are also se"eral others$ the aforementioned poco meno mosso that precedes both

appearances of the second sub(ect, the prolonated poco a poco accelerando al !Allegro

inquieto come prima" ranin from bar /-/ to bar /05, as well as ritenutoat the end of the

second sub(ect in the exposition, a tempoat the beinnin of the de"elopment, and veloce in

bar 555.

It is "ery difficult to set the tempi in this mo"ement exactly, because both main

mar!ins are somewhat ambiuous as Pro!ofie";s mar!ins tend to be2. Boes Allegro

inquietomean that it should be anAllegrobut with an anxious and ner"ous feelin, or does it

actually mean Cfaster than allegroD, as it seems to be understood by many pianists >lso, the

Andantino would be excruciatinly slow if we played the metronomic settin for Andantino

which is in itself "ery imprecise2 countin the eiht%notes, and it would lose its rie"in

dolentecharacter, and become downriht cheerful, or at least dancin, if we would count the

dotted uarter%note which would, of course, be much more typical in a 10 meter2. So, it is

not "ery clear why the composer hasn;t set the tempo of this part to >ndante, and e"en

>daio. This decision actually pushes us towards the conclusion that the tempo of this

section is meant to be ambiuous, that it should at the same time !eep the rie"in character,

but still ha"e some of the mo"ement thatAndantino would brin.

In S"iatosla" 6ichter;s rendition, the beinnin tempo is quasi presto around /:F

beats per minute2, and the Andantino is set at around :F beats per minute, with some

fluctuation, due to the aforementioned character of the section. The whole first section of the

sonata up to theAndante2 is "ery ner"ous in tempo, with numerous little chanes, but the

tempo doesn;t o below /-F bpm or abo"e /7-. In the end of this portion, 6ichter ma!es an

ob"ious, uite extreme ritardando, actually leadin the tempo intoAndantino. The poco a

poco accelerando section is not executed in a "ery radual matter in 6ichter;s performance,

there are a few steps of tempo chane, but thepoco a poco effect was not fully realied. e

actually ma!es the first of these steps in bar /-F, e"en before the mar!in poco a poco

accelerando. The recapitulation is uite similar, apart from a suddenpi# mosso in bar 54F

and a somewhat more uestionin approach in the second sub(ect. The Eoda is in a true

Presto oin around /7F%/0F bpm.

lenn ould;s primary tempo is a bit slower thouh it is also ob"iously faster than a

typical metronomic >llero2, and the chanes are less dramatic barely noticable2 in the first

part. e, li!e 6ichter, ma!es a substantial ritardando leadin to the Andantino. ould;s

34


35/66

Andantino is a bit more li"ely at the beinnin, but he ma!es much more aoic chanes

throuhout the second theme, ma!in his second theme last around /- seconds loner than

6ichter;s, and brinin more tempo "ariety to the section. The poco a poco... is more radual

with ould, but in a "ery peculiar matter$ he ma!essu$ito meno mossoin two places, and

speeds after each one of those, but the next su$ito meno mossobrins him bac! to almost the

same tempo as the pre"ious one, as shown in #xample -53.

#xample - bars /-1%/052

(poco a poco............................................................................................................

.............. ((

accelerando - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - subito meno mosso

acc. poco a poco - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -subito m e n o m o s s o poco a poco acc. - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - al - - - - - - - - - Allegro (Tempo I)

))

53 ould;s tempo chanes are mar!ed in red, and the oriinal mar!in is in double parentheses. In all followin

examples, the chanes made by the pianists will be mar!ed in a similar fashion.

3-


36/66

The recapitulation is also uite conser"ati"e in tempo manipulation, the more ob"ious

chanes apart from the ritardando towards the end of section2 bein in bars 550%551,

underlinin the phrasin #xample :2.

#xample : bars 550%53/2

rit. molto - - - - - (Quasi a tempo) -rit. - - - - A tempo

molto tenuto

The Eoda is completely different than 6ichter;s, tempo%wise$ he starts "ery carefully,

with uncertainty, and ma!es se"eral ru$atoeffects in the beinnin, pic!in up the tempo

later #xample 72.

#xample 7 bars 3-1%3712

molto ritardando - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Quasi a tempo

poco ritardando A tempo

poco rit. A tempo ritardando - - - - - - - - - -

Tempo primo

3:


37/66


38/66

exaerated, as one would expect to be done in a @aroue fuue. In the poco a poco.. ould

uses a lot of pedal, and a "ery hea"y touch, which he continues doin in the recapitulation

but interpolates staccato with no pedal in certain places after returnin to tempo prmo after

the build%up2. e is not "ery true to the score dynamic%wise in this part, especially in the bars

5:1%574 and 50/%50: #xamples 0 and 12.

#xample 0 bars 5:-%5742

pp

mp

mf

#xample 1 bars 50F%5042

pp - - - - - - - - - - - - mp dim, - - - - pp

mf

The second sub(ect is wetter this time, and less soft dynamically. The Eoda brins the

same articulation as the beinnin, but with the tempo manipulations mentioned earlier, it

creates uite a different impression.

30


39/66

c6 Oerie* "nd conc+u!ion!

The interpretation of this mo"ement is a "ery difficult tas! for any performer, for

numerous reasons$ hihest le"el of technical difficulties, complicated lanuae and

composin techniues, as well as an uncertainty in the composer;s e2"ct intentions. This last

reason is the most interestin for analytic purposes, and in the performances of these two

celebrated pianists, we can see how differently the composer;s instructions or lac! of

instructions2 can be understood by a performer.

6ichter;s performance brins an elemental power, as many of his performances do,

and it seems that that power comes at a price, in this case the price is stability and clarity, as

well as moderation in sound, and especially in tempo2. It miht be that this lac! of

moderation IS what ma!es his performance so powerful and compellin, but it still is a

discrepancy with the written text.

ould, on the other hand, has a "ery stable o"er"iew of the mo"ement, but brins out

some "ery peculiar details. is reat di"ersity of articulation and careful poliphonic "oicin

ma!es his interpretation "ery interestin to hear and analyse, but it can hardly be used as a

model interpretation of this mo"ement.

'..' ,er%or$er3! per!pectie

I find that theAllegro inAllegro inqieto should be respected, and that there is no need

for playin &ivace orPresto. That is why my startin tempo in this mo"ement is around /4F

bpm. I am "ery careful with the pedallin in the first sub(ect, and use it when necessary and

not more than is needed. I use partial pedal a lot here, and pedal "ibrato, which helps in

creatin a deep and colourful sound with no blurrin. I thin! it is "ery important not to rush

at all in this mo"ement which is "ery easy, because of the rhythmical and textural

instability2, and to ha"e "ery ood control of the sound and tempo.

The second sub(ect is where we finally find an expression of humanity and here, I

belie"e, it is of utmost importance to !eep a sinin line in the upper "oice, and to use a "ery

determinate articulation, a firm, but calm leato. The mar!in espressivo e dolenteshould not

be understood in a sentimental, romantic way Pro!ofie" was !nown as an anti%romanticist2,

the expression should be simple, natural and flowin. That is why I chose a slower tempo in

31


40/66

the beinnin, around -F bpm for a dotted uarter%note, but I tried to let the phrases sin in a

natural flow, which means there is rubato, but it is not exaerated.

I start the poco a poco acc. a little earlier than pianist usually do.


41/66

different sections.

Part B beins with section c% a clear statement of this new material, Cmaterial 3D

#xample /F ? rele"ant part mar!ed with the red brac!et2, exposed in the form of a

modulatory sentence of 0 bars, with a clear cadena e"en thouh the final chord is in"erted2.

Then a "ariation of this sentence starts in bar 31, but the material is not stated in its entirety,

and is bro!en with an entrance of a sub%motif start of section d2 ta!en from the same

material, but with a new reistration, and with different reistration and tonality, in bar 4:.

This two%bar sub%motif repeats two times, in different contexts and reisters, before a

climactic burst of chords in bar -5 prepares the new material Cmaterial 4D2, which is stated

partially, and then, after another culmination with chords in descendin reisters, we hear it

stated openly at the start of section e, in bars -:%-1 #xample //2.

#xample /F ? material 3 bars 3/%312

4/


42/66

#xample // ? material 4 bars --%-12

This material is not really a motif material per se, it is a combination of a chord

proression usin chromatic mediant chords, and a micro%motif of (ust two tones, in the

inter"al of a diminished third, with octa"e accompaniment in the bass, usin also only two

interchanin tones. This is followed by an interpolation of the pre"iously used sub%motif of

material 3 in bars -1%:/, and another presentation of material 4 bars :5%:42, which is also

followed by the mentioned sub%motif, with a repetition bars :4%:-, and ::%:72.

> new material appears at the beinnin of section %, in bar :1 at the place mar!ed un

poco agitato2, stated in a three%bar model, with the first repetition bein shortened to two

bars, and then dissol"in until only a descendin line is left, leadin to funeral%li!eppchords

in bars 71 and 0F. These chords are a strane modification of material 4, because we can also

detect the repeatin inter"al, but this time it;s a minor third, and the chords in the upper

reister don;t chane, so Pro!ofie" introduces only certain parts of material 4 in bar 71, and

addin some more but not all2 in bar 0/.

Section 0, startin in bar 71, brins the maical, terrifyin anti%climax of themo"ement in bar 0F #xample /52. This section is based on a per"erted and disfiured

"ersion of material 4, and it creates a uniue effect. 8e ha"e the chord proression, we ha"e

the repeatin inter"al in the middle this time it is a minor second2, and the octa"e

accompaniment in the bass, which is aain a repeated minor third but this time it doesn;t

ha"e an added two%octa"e reister chane between e"ery note2. The first time it was in ff, and

now it is inpp except for the insistin inter"al in the middle, which is mf2. So, e"erythin is

there, but nothin is there.

45


43/66

#xample /5 bars 71%072

This statement of the material bars 0/%0:2 is repeated bars 01%172, after a two%bar

interpolation of material 3. The repetition is proloned, and dissol"es, until (ust one fadinchord is left ? and aain, it is an in"ersion third2 of a dominant se"enth chord, same as at the

end of part > this time, the root is >2.

The recapitulation bars 17%/F72 uses (ust the first sentence from part A, and instead

of a de"elopin section b, there is (ust a little hint of a Eoda, with bell%li!e chords brinin

dissonance, but at the end resol"in bac! to the main !ey of # ma(or.

43


44/66


A/%3/2 B3/%172 A22

" b "1 c d e % 0 "17%/F72/%0 0%/: /:%3/ 3/%4- 4:%-/ -5%:1 :1%70 71%17

#xtended sent.Sentence Sent. Sent. Sent. 9pen sent. Aramentary Aram. Aram.

Simpe ternary form 9pen period

Aiure 5$ a schematic o"er"iew of the form ofAndante caloroso.The mo"ement is written in

a modified A B A form, with the middle part of the form brinin tonal, textural and formal

instability.

'.'. An"+!i! o% the per%or$"nce!

"6 The ti$e / te$po "nd "0o0ic!

6ichter;s startin tempo in this mo"ement is "ery hard to determine, because of his

extensi"e use of rubato in the beinnin, but it oes between around 3- to around 7F bpm for

a uarter%note, which puts in the "ery wide rane of tempo between Lento assai andAdagio

or e"en a slowerAndante. >ain, we come to the problem of tempo, which is increased by

Andante bein the most unclear of all the standard tempo mar!ins, with the biest

"ariations in interpretation toether with its youner siblin, Andantino2. >nd also, this

particular mo"ement can hardly be played in a con"entional Andante metronomical tempo

rane, because it would be much too fast.

The eneral tempo concept that 6ichter brins in this first part of the mo"ement is$ the

beinnin of e"ery section ", b, and "12 is "ery slow, drain, and then he pic!s up the

tempo durin the second phrase #xample /3, concernin section ", he does a similar thin in

the other two sections of part A2. If we ta!e this tempo, that he ets to in each section after

the preparation, as his actual decided tempo, one can claim that 6ichter does follow the

instructions by the composer, thouh, aain, in a "ery creati"e or, in other words, loose2 way.

It is more li!ely, in my opinion, that his tempo of choice is >daio or 'ento, and the speedin

up is in purpose of more colourful phrasin.

44


45/66


46/66

#xample /- bars --%::2

Lento assai, acc poco a poco al. - - - Largo

ritardando al Lento A tempo (Largo)

ritardando al Lento

acc. al - - - - Largo

e starts section %bar :12 in a tempo around :- bpm, but radually slows down so

that the anti%climax in section 0is inLento assai around 3- bpm2. The recapitulation is (ust a

bit faster than this, but is definitely slower than the openin.

4:


47/66


48/66

#xample /7 bars 71%042

In the repetition of the anti%climax, 6ichter does play the middle "oice in a mfbut he

plays the accompaniment mp this time, so he still doesn;t ma!e a "ery bi sound space

between the different plans.

ould starts the mo"ement with mf oin towardsf "ery often in the middle main2

"oice, and mostly mp in the other plans. In section b, he brins out different "oices at the

same time stron polyphonic approach is, as stated before, typical for ould;s performin2.

9f course, not all of these "oices are of the same importance in his performance, but it is

ob"ious that he chose not to choose a Cmain "oiceD in this de"elopment in section b

#xample /02.

#xample /0 bars /F%/42

ould also ta!es a polyphonic approach throuhout part B, which is more polyphonic

in itself, so there are more opportunities to experiment with the "oicin than in part A. e

mostly follows the dynamic instructions in this part until the anti%climax. ere, he plays the

main "oice (ust a notch louder than the others, and they are all in the mp dynamic rane. e

also ma!es a strane crescendo towards the end of part B, where it seems loical to ma!e a

diminuendo #xample /12.

40


49/66

#xample /1 bars 15%1-2

There is one important point about pedallin I would li!e to ma!e$ 6ichter uses a lot

of riht pedal in the polyphonic first sections of part Bsections cand d2, which ma!es the

sound imae somewhat blurry. The ob"ious reason for usin so much riht pedal is to !eepthe lon bass notes last as lon as they should, sometime a whole bar. ould sol"es this

problem by usin the middle pedal a lot in this section, and I completely aree with this

method.


@oth mentioned pianists create a canta$ile sound in the beinnin, and they both

create the espressivo in part B, but ould in my opinion2 fails to brin the caloroso to thismo"ement, which is "ery important. e disreards the dynamic mar!ins in the beinnin

and uses a "ery hard sound for the first theme, while 6ichter uses a "ery soft touch, and !eeps

a low dynamic rane in the beinnin, which what is needed to et the caloroso, in my

opinion. This is not a "ery bi surprise, since warmth, as well as precision and clarity of

expression, count amon 6ichter;s reatest pianistic "alues, while ould;s stronest features,

a fantastic sense of polyphony and the means to deli"er it to his piano performances2 and a

reat "ariety of articulations especially the non legato ones2 don;t find so much usae inmusic of this !ind.

9ne more important thin is that ould oes a lon way to ma!e a point out of

creatin a contrast between sections "and b, while 6ichter emphasises the contrast between

part A and part B. This is also not "ery surprisin, !nowin that ould is a well%!nown

master of detail and peculiar, e"en uir!y, micro%effects, while 6ichter is all about the power

of expression and about the bi picture.

>s a eneral decision, I ha"e to put 6ichter up as the one that follows composer;s

41


50/66

intentions more, meanin, predominantly, the main character mar!in of the mo"ement ?

caloroso, which is, in my opinion, almost always the most important mar!in to follow.

ould, on the other hand, brins many interestin details in his performance, but lac!s the

caloroso.

'.'.' ,er%or$er3! per!pectie

I start this mo"ement in a "ery calm atmosphere, meanin a rather slow tempo, "ery

soft touch, and not too much rubato. ain, it is "ery important to understand that connections li!e this are (ust demonstrations of plausibleemotional associations. It is much easier to explain a certain atmosphere by connectin it to a correspondin

non%musical content.

-F


51/66

'.( Third $oe$ent /!recipitato

'.(.1 5or$

This mo"ement is written in a rather conser"ati"e three%sub(ect sonata rondo form A%

B%C%B%A2. There are three main thematic materials, and their usae coincides with formal

di"isions. The mo"ement is written in 70 time, which by itself interestin, but what ma!es

this mo"ement so eneretic, full of dri"e, and rhythmically rich, is the fact that the lon

roup is in the middle, and it is e"en accented throuhout the first sub(ect. The usual di"ision

of a 70 piece of music, both in classical and traditional music would be 3%5%5, or 5%5%3.

ere, instead, the di"ision of meter is 5%3%5. This ma!es the meter "irtually incomprehensible

to a person not ha"in the score in front, and I ha"e yet to find or hear of2 a person who is

able to hear without the score2 where the down%beats are in this first section.

The first theme has an ostinato fiure in bass, which is "ery insistin and without

restraints or subtlety hence the title of this mo"ement2. >ll the subtlety is depleted, and we

remain face to face with the mechanical automatism, a merciless military force, or some other

!ind of unstoppable, cold power, it is open for different interpretations 5-. The ostinato motif

is based on one stem%motif, @%flat ? E%sharp ? @%flat, which is repeated and transformed, but

consistently returns in its oriinal form throuhout the first section of the mo"ement

#xample 5F2.

#xample 5F bars /%42

5- There are many interpretations of the meanin of this mo"ement, but they all ha"e the same foundation,

which is ob"iously incorporated in the music itself. I thin! it is "ery helpful to find a meanin outside musicto help the performer find a way to express what the music, which does not use words, means. @ut it is,

ne"ertheless, eually important not to associate this meanin with music in a way that would claim to be theabsolute truth unless the composer himself wrote a proram of the piece, or explained his sources of

inspiration2. There is no riht or wron here, I belie"e, but only helpful and unhelpful.

-/


52/66

This motif is opposed by chord proressions in the riht hand, bro!en by melodic

interpolations in se"eral occasions #xample 5/2.

#xample 5/ bars 5:%512

The first section bars /%442 is a period of two chained sentences, where the second

sentence is a "ariation of the first, but has a more con"incin cadena.

There is a short bride section, which beins as the first sentence, but is bro!en by the

new ostinato motif, which is clearly the accompaniment in this section. The main melodic

motif comes se"eral bars later #xample 552.

#xample 55 bars -F%-32

Section B is framentary, and consists of a ten%bar model which is repeated

transposed a minor third up, followed by a four%bar connection to a "aried repetition of the

same model, not usin the whole six%bar melodic motif, but (ust the beinnin shown in

#xample 55.

Section Cis in a eneral # minor settin. It starts in a clearly homophonic sound

picture, with the melody in the low reister, and bro!en chord accompaniment in the upper.

This picture is bro!en by introducin a supplementary motif in the upper "oice #xample 532.

-5


53/66


54/66


A/%

452

@ride

45%-52

B-5%712 C71%/F-2 B1/F-%/5:2 A1/57%/772

Period Arame

ntary

Aramentary 9pen period Aramentary Period

Aiure 3$ a schematic o"er"iew of the form ofPrecipitato.The mo"ement is written in three%

sub(ect sonata rondo form, after the classicist model of the form, includin the imitation and

de"iation2 of the typical tonal relations.

'.(. An"+!i! o% the per%or$"nce!

"6 The ti$e / te$po "nd "0o0ic!

6ichter starts the mo"ement with around /4F bpm for a uarter note2, but starts

speedin up "ery soon, and ets to a tempo of around /:F bpm after (ust a few bars. =ntil the

end of section A, he ets to a tempo of around /7- bpm. e oes a little bit bac! in tempo at

the start of section B, and starts speedin up aain. e does the same thin in section C, and

aain starts speedin out throuhout the section. e does not slow down as much at the start

of B1, but continues the accelerando. This speedin stops at the beinnin of recapitulation,

where he almost oes bac! to the startin tempo, and, of course, continues speedin up until

the end, reachin a speed of approximately /0F bpm.

e does the same meno mosso accelerando poco a poco at the end of each sentence

or sub%section throuhout the mo"ement, but to a lesser extent than at the ends of bier

sections. The only ob"ious chane in flow, apart from the mentioned ones, is in the climactic

second sentence of part A1, where he slows down "ery much on the arpeios in bars /-5 and

/-4 #xample 542. It is physically impossible to play this arpeio in this tempo without

slowin down, but he ob"iously ma!es a point on ta!in much time for playin them, in the

oal of underlinin the accent at the top of the arpeio.

-4


55/66


56/66

b6 The !ound / dn"$ic!) po+phon) "rticu+"tion "nd ped"++in0

@oth pianists follow the dynamic mar!ins in the score uite closely. The main

difference is the choice of the plan that ets most attention. In the beinnin, 6ichter does

ma!e the accents in the bass line apparent, but otherwise, he treats the left hand as

accompaniment, while ould plays the left hand "ery prominently and with much expression,

while he ma!es accompaniment out of the chords in the riht hand.

The most interestin difference in the two interpretations, sound%wise, is the use of

pedal and articulation. 6ichter;s articulation is firm and not too dry in the whole mo"ement,

and he does not chane it much. is pedallin is a little wetter in the first part and e"en more

in the recapitulation, and "ery wet in the climax, while he plays much more dry in the middle

sections.

ould employs his fantastic s!ill of staccato playin throuhout the mo"ement, and

underlines it by the o"erall lac! of pedal in the main theme. owe"er, in section B he

suddenly starts playin "ery wet, with a lot of pedal, and a bit of rubato. This cannot be

treated as an addition to the text, e"en thouh he added somethin to the score, because the

use of certain amount of pedal in certain moments or continuously2 is expected in piano

playin, and oes without sayin, unless the composer explicitly puts the mar!in secco in

the score57. This pedallin that ould applies in section B, thouh, is "ery counter%intuiti"e,

and "ery counter%intuiti"e actions in music interpretation need to be (ustified, they need to

ha"e a reason preser"in consistency, creatin bier contrast, and so forth502. I cannot see a

ood enouh reason to play this part with so much pedal, apart from ould;s habit to play

thins in uncon"entional ways, and try to still ma!e it wor!. The only "alid explanation is

creation of contrast with section A, but that reason is not ood enouh in itself here, because

the accompaniment in the riht hand has ob"ious percussi"e character, while the melodic lineis written mostly in eiht%notes, with rests between them. They are also labelled marcato.

This !ind of pedallin reduces both the percussi"eness of the accompaniment and the

marcato character of the theme.

57 Pedallin usually eludes the di"ision of interpreti"e chanes I mentioned before. It does not fall under either

of the three cateories, because we can almost ne"er claim with absolute certainty what !ind of pedallin acomposer had in mind while writin a piece.

50 Aor example, the meno mossoin bar /:- can be explained$ these chords are an interpolation in the cadena,and they are "ery unexpected and darin. ould slows down to draw attention to the interestin new sound

colour.

-:


57/66

So, here we lac! a ood musical reason of an uncon"entional action, which ma!es that

action un(ustified, in terms of style.

The rest of the mo"ement is consistent to the interpretati"e concept ould chose.


The reat differences in eneral concept, and especially tempo that different pianists

choose for this mo"ement come from the "ery unusual mar!in that Pro!ofie" chose as a

character label for this mo"ement. It is not a tempo mar!in, and so, e"en more than usual,

there is no final answer to the uestion of tempo here. >s lon as someone can play this

mo"ement in the CprecipitatoD character, he can play it at his will, tempo%wise. It was stated

earlier in this thesis that this term means in musical terms2 rushed, impetuous, with disreardand abandon. It may mean CrushedD but that does not necessarily mean CfastD, it can mean

Cwith constantly increasin speedD2, but it we understand the mar! as Cfallin downD which

is the literal translation from Italian2, it may apply more to touch and pedallin than to tempo.

6ichter went for a hea"y, CfallinD sound, a lot of weiht and a lot of pedal, and he

also uses accelerando a lot in this mo"ement, while ould plays faster at the beinnin, but

is stable in tempo and uses a much lihter touch apart from section B2. It must be said that in

this mo"ement 6ichter aain fulfils the main character instruction to a reater extent than

ould.

'.(.' ,er%or$er3! per!pectie

I belie"e that theprecipitato does not mean a "ery fast tempo, in my opinion it (ust

means that there should be no slowin down, almost no rubato, and that it should be played

with a hea"y touch, but with not "ery much pedal until the last two paes. >s you can hear on

the EB, I chose a slower tempo in this mo"ement around /-- bpm for a uarter%note2, and!ept it throuhout the mo"ement, speedin up only a little bit near the end, in the climactic

second sentence of the recapitulation. I play sections Band Cenerally with a short and firm

articulation, and with almost no pedal apart from the interpolated upper%"oice melody in

section C2. 8hen the main sub(ect returns, I play with more pedal, and with stroner

accentuation of the middle note in the ostinato bass motif.

-7


58/66

( Outco$e o% the "n"+!e!) di!cu!!ion.

This section is the place for discussion of the findins. The section starts with a table,

a "isual representation of the findins collected from the analysis. It is followed by the

discussion of the results.

The per%o$"nce!

S"iatosla" 6ichter lenn ould

Tempo #xtreme tempo differences Eontrolled tempo, clear concept

>oics rticulation lso, we can see clearly that both pianists play

to their biest ad"antaes$ 6ichter on his power and communication, and ould on his

polyphonic and articulation s!ills, as well as his reat sense of rhythm.


59/66

most pieces he plays, while 6ichter is !nown for tryin to stay true to the score. This fact can

be illustrated by their own words. 6ichter;s reaction to ould;s impression about the Schubert

sonata, uoted earlier and many other statements he made durin his life2, o to pro"e that

he honestly saw his role as a performer, but not "n interpreter. Eontinuation of the reaction

uoted earlier$ C8hen I play the Sonata, my colleaues often as!$ ;Sla"a, why do you play so

slowly;. The truth is that I do not e"en play what Schubert wrote, molto moderato but

actually only moderato. #"eryone else always plays it allegro moderato. 9r simply allegro.D

This statement deser"es a little in"estiation$ if we loo! at Schubert;s score #xample

5:2, we can clearly see that the intended unit for countin is a uarter%note. 6ichter;s

recordins that I found an example can be the recordin from June ;:4. 512 ha"e a tempo

re"ol"in around 7F bpm for a uarter%note at least in the beinnin of the mo"ement2,

which would be a true metronomicAdagio, so it is ob"ious that 6ichter disrearded these

usual metronomic "alues he was often criticied for his habit of playin Ctoo slowD or Ctoo

fastD2, and chose the tempo in the pieces he played by tryin to achie"e the feelin of the

tempo or character mar!in that was indicated in the score, rather than usin a metronomic

"alue as a landmar!.

#xample 5:, beinnin of the Sonata in @%flat ma(or by Aran Schubert

This "iew, is, self%e"idently, present in a reat ma(ority of musicians, because

metronomic "alues are always an estimate, the tempo depends on many aspects, includin

time sinature, subdi"ision of the beats, character mar!ins, as well as intrepretational

tradition. >lso, there are onoin disputes amon researchers about the exact meanin of

certain tempo mar!ins before the in"ention of metronome in YIY century2. >lso, Allegro

which may be translated from Italian as (oyful2, lost its character%bearin implications a lon

time ao, but in the beinnins of its usae, it meant not only fast, by (oyful as well and e"en

51 @@E 'eends series, Eataloue number @@E'4/1:%5, a"ailable at

http$hia.naxosmusiclibrary.comcataloueitem.aspcidZ@@E'4/1:%5

-1


60/66

(oyful, but not necessarily fast2. The problem of Ccorrect tempoD is a "ery difficult issue for

performers and musicoloists ali!e$

Theoretically, e"ery piece of music with a tempo indication has a WcorrectX

tempo. In practice, howe"er, such indications "ary in usefulness. lso some metronome

mar!ins are so fast as to be impracticable. Kerbal directions are imprecise and

sub(ect to different interpretations. In @aroue music they may indicate a WmoodX or

WmannerX of performance rather than a speed e.. allero, literally WcheerfulX2& or they

may be used in a purely relati"e sense in the context of other tempo desinations in

the same piece. Their meanins and associations ha"e chaned o"er the years. In

addition, it is not always clear whether metronome mar!ins or "erbal instructions

ha"e the composer;s authority or are editorial additions.3F

So, 6ichter claimed that he only played what is in the score, but here we see where the

problem in this statement lies$ Cwhat lies in the scoreD is not some always, if e"er, measurable

or precisely calibrated, and is always open for discussion. There is not enouh space in this

thesis to discuss the problems of lanuae and communication in detail, but it is an ob"ious

fact that any lanuae is flawed and imperfect in itself, and that, of course, oes for musical

lanuae and notation as well. >s the composer Aeruccio @usoni wrote, C#"ery notation is, in

itself, a transcription of an abstract idea. The instant the pen seies it, the idea loses its

oriinal form.3/.

If we set thins in absolutes, there are two extremes on the scale of interpretati"e

freedom. The first one is metric, robotic playin performed when a score is transferred to a

ll the music that really

3F Scholes, Percy, et al. tempo. The 9xford Eompanion to lison 'atham. 9xford pr. 5F/5 http$www.oxfordmusiconline.comsubscriberarticleoprt//4e::11U.

3/ @usoni, /1//, p. 0-

:F


61/66

interests me ? not (ust some of it, all of it ? is contrapuntal music 35.

ould also stated on multiple occasions that there is no absolute truth in performance,

and that CIf thereXs any excuse at all for ma!in a record, itXs to do it differently 33D. That

brins us to the main difference in the two philosophies that the two pianists represent$ for

6ichter, there is only one truth, and for ould there are many.

35 @onus EB from C> state of wonder ? The Eomplete oldber Kariations /1-- [ /10/D, published by SonyElassical

33 'P Clenn ould$ Eoncert BropoutD

:/


62/66

;. Su$$"r. End $"r-!.

;.1 Su$$"r

This thesis used se"eral scientific methods, mainly different analytic methods and the

historical method, to disco"er the differences between the raphical data collected from the

sheet music for Piano Sonata No. 7 by Serei Pro!ofie" and the sound data collected from the

recordins of this piece by lenn ould and S"iatosla" 6ichter. The findins were then

athered, cateoried and discussed, drawin certain conclusions about the nature of

performance enerally, and specifically, the performin poetics of ould and 6ichter.

;. End $"r-!

I want to state one thin that is "ery important for me. 8hile conductin the research

for this thesis, I came to contact with many interestin dilemmas and problems of

performance, f. ex. tempo issues. 8hile thin!in about them and analysin the data, I realied

how beneficial this research is for me as a performer. The problem is that pianists aren;t

enerally encouraed by their instrument teachers as their main uides, usually2 to o "ery

deep into the analytical and theoretical world, and instead often rely on some !ind of

CintuitionD and CinstinctD. These terms are wildly diffuse in meanin, and not "ery useful for

ascertainin any clear conclusions about performin. >rt is not easily uantified and

measured, and maybe e"en less easily explain, but I belie"e that it is a duty of any pianist,

and especially piano pedaoue, to encourae uestionin the codes of interpretation and to

broaden and deepen not only the how ? technical and musical practical2 trainin, but also the

why ? theoretical and deeper not only superficial2 understandin of the aesthetics of

performed pieces. >lso, it would be immensely beneficial to train students by conductin the!ind of research that this thesis does on a reular basis, first with the help of the teacher, and

later by themsel"es.

Possible future researchers can continue the research that was conducted in this thesis

in se"eral ways$ it would be interestin and a helpful interpretation study tool2 to ma!e an

e(haustive research of disparity between the sheet music and sound on an example of two or

more performances of the same wor!, possibly includin the influence of other outside

factors on the sound result, factors which this thesis could not include on accounts of space.

:5


63/66

The other extension could be the problem of musical ideas and written music lanuae

in a more abstract analytical settin, to determine the possibilities of expressin a musical

idea in notation. This field has already been discussed at lenth, and a researcher could use

the findins of these eneral findins on Pro!ofie";s score, tryin to determine the symbolic

content of certain ambiuous mar!ins by the composer, for example.

The last possibility of further research that I would li!e to mention is a research in the

field of pedaoy, connected to the pre"iously mentioned problem of encouraement of

students for deep theoretical research. This !ind of research could also find use of my

findins, and especially my analytic process.

:3


64/66

< Source!.

, . Schirmer. Translated from

erman by T. @a!er. 9riinal wor! published in /1F72.

Eott, J. /1042. /onversations with Glenn Gould.New Mor!, NM, =S>. 'ittle, @rown and Eompany, 'td.

Ariedrich, 9. /1012. Glenn Gould+ A life and variations.New Mor!, NM, =S>. 6andom ouse Inc.

JaffR, B. /1102. -erge* Prokofiev.'ondon, =nited +indom, Phaidon.

, =ni"ersity Press of New #nland.

Translated from Banish by 6ussel Bees. 9riinal wor! published in 5FF7, yldendals!e

@ohandel, Eopenhaen, Benmar!2

6obinson, . 5FF52. -ergei Prokofiev+ A 3iograph* 5FF5 reprint, with a new foreword and afterword by the

author2. @inhamton, NM, =S>, Northeastern =ni"ersity Press. 9riinal wor! published /1072

Seroff, K. /1:12. -ergei Prokofiev+ A -oviet %raged*.New Mor!, NM, =S>, Tapliner Publishin Eo.

:4


65/66


66/66