【NAXOS】MOZART - Piano Sonatas, Vol. 2 (Piano Sonatas Nos. 9, 12, 16 and 17)

The Sonata in D major, K. 311, was completed in Mannheim in October or November 1777 and may probably be identified with the sonata intended for the two Freysinger girls that Mozart had met in Munich, mentioned in letters to his cousin in Augsburg. Their father had been a fellow-student of Leopold Mozart and had something to say about a man usually seen as a figure of sobriety. "Murder will out", was Leopold Mozart's reply to his son's repetition of Freysinger's reminiscences. The sonata opens with a brightly confident first subject and a more delicately contrasted second subject, with characteristic chromatic appoggiature, followed by a central development that explores remoter keys. The G major slow movement, its principal theme later duly embellished, leads to a final rondo, its opening theme compared by the Italian composer Alfredo Casella to the principal theme of the finale of Beethoven's Violin Concerto.

The well known Sonate facile, the easy Sonata in C major, K. 545, originally described by Mozart as a little sonata for beginners, has enjoyed spurious fame in the present century, its principal theme published in the 1940s under the title "In an 18th Century Drawing-Room", a transformation that did the original little justice. The sonata was completed on 26th June 1788, the day before yet another letter from Mozart to his patient fellow freemason, Michael Puchberg, who continued to lend him money, with little hope of its return. The little sonata is of a particularly transparent texture, with a G major slow movement that has its due share of poignancy and a sprightly final rondo.

The Sonata in F major, K. 332, belongs to the group of three written in 1783 and given to the composer's sister Nannerl before their publication in Vienna in the following year. The sonatas were written either in Vienna or during the course of a summer visit home to Salzburg, during which Mozart introduced his wife to his disapproving family. The principal theme of the first movement is followed by a dramatic link with the C major second theme. The B flat major second movement allows the principal theme considerable embellishment, before the brilliant finale.

Mozart's financial difficulties were no nearer a lasting solution by February 1789, when he wrote out his Sonata in B fiat major, K. 570, which was first published posthumously with an optional violin part. As on other occasions, the composer opens with a principal theme based on the notes of the major triad, later contrasted with a more lyrical theme. The finely wrought E flat major slow movement gives way to a finale of fertile invention.

【NAXOS】MOZART - Piano Sonatas, Vol. 1 (Piano Sonatas Nos. 8, 10 and 15)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born in Salzburg in 1756, the youngest child of Leopold Mozart, author of a well known treatise on violin-playing and a musician in the service of the ruling Archbishop. Leopold Mozart was to sacrifice his own career in order to foster the God-given genius he soon perceived in his son. A childhood spent in successful tours throughout Europe, in which the young Mozart demonstrated his skill on the violin, and on the keyboard in improvisation and in performance with his sister Nannerl was followed by a less satisfactory adolescence at home in Salzburg. Mozart's talent was none the less, but there seemed little opportunity at home, particularly after the death of the old Archbishop and the succession of a less indulgent patron. In 1777 Mozart and his father, now Vice-Kapellmeister, were refused leave to travel, and Mozart himself resigned his position as Konzertmeister of the court orchestra and set out, accompanied only by his mother, to seek his fortune elsewhere. The journey took him to Augsburg, to Munich and eventually to Paris, but only after a prolonged stay in Mannheim, the seat of the Elector of Bavaria, famous for its musical establishment.

In Mannheim Mozart made many friends among the musicians at court, but neither here nor in any of the other places he visited was there a suitable position for him. The following year, after the death of his mother in Paris, he made his way slowly back to Salzburg, where his father had found him another position at court that he retained until 1781, when he found final precarious independence in Vienna. The following year he married the penniless younger sister of a singer on whom he had first set his heart in Mannheim and won initial success with his German opera Die Entführung aus dem Serail. There were pupils and subscription concerts, and chances to arouse the admiration of fashionable audiences by his skill as composer and keyboard-player in a new series of piano concertos. By the end of the decade, however, his popularity had waned, although there were signs of a change of fortune in the success of a new German opera, Die Zauberflöte (The Magic Flute), which was still running at the time of his sudden death in December 1791.

Nothing is known of the circumstances of composition of one of the most important of Mozart's earlier piano sonatas, the >Sonata in A minor, K. 310. It bears the date 1778 and was written in Paris, and therefore was composed at a time when Mozart had come to understand the futility of wasting more time in France, where he felt himself undervalued. During the course of the summer his mother died, a misfortune with which he was able to bear with a greater degree of maturity than might have been expected, breaking the news gently enough to his father, at home in Salzburg. The A minor Sonata opens with a principal theme of some poignancy, the mood lightened by the C major second subject. The elaborate figuration of the F major slow movement leads to an A minor final Presto that finds room for a brief episode in the tonic major key.

The Sonata in C major, K. 330, was probably written in 1783, either in Vienna, or during the course of Mozart's first visit home to Salzburg, bringing with him a wife of whom his father strongly disapproved. It is clearly one of the sonatas mentioned by the composer in a letter to his father written in June 1784, identified with K. 330, K. 331 and K. 332, and now sent for publication to Artaria, but already known to his sister. The sonata opens with an operatic principal theme, while its F major slow movement has at its heart a darker-hued F minor section, leading to a final Allegretto.

By 1788, the date of the first two movements of the Sonata in F major, K. 533, Mozart's financial difficulties had assumed some importance for him. His father had died in 1787, the year of the opera Don Giovanni, while in 1786, the year of composition of the last movement of the K. 533 Sonata, Le nozze di Figaro (The Marriage of Figaro) had proved a success. A fourth child had been born at the end of December and was to die six months later. The first two movements of the F major sonata bear the date 3rd January 1788, and the final rondo the date 10th June 1786, catalogued by Köchel separately as K. 494. The whole sonata was published in Vienna in early 1788. The first movement starts with a single-line melody, echoed at the octave, followed by a second subject that includes an important triplet figure. There is a B flat major slow movement and the final rondo, expanded for the 1788 publication, now includes a cadenza with an element of counterpoint.

FLAC

【NAXOS】 SCARLATTI COMPLETE KEYBOARD SONATAS VOL.16 (DUANDUAN HAO)

Domenico Scarlatti was born in Naples in 1685, sixth of the ten children of the composer Alessandro Scarlatti, Sicilian by birth and chiefly responsible for the early development of Neapolitan opera. The Scarlatti family had extensive involvement in music both in Rome and in Naples, where Alessandro Scarlatti became maestro di cappella to the Spanish viceroy in 1684. Domenico Scarlatti started his public career in 1701 under his father’s aegis as organist and composer in the vice-regal chapel. The following year father and son took leave of absence to explore the possibilities of employment in Florence, and Alessandro was later to exercise paternal authority by sending his son to Venice, where he remained for some four years. In 1709 Domenico entered the service of the exiled Queen of Poland, Maria Casimira, in Rome, there meeting and playing against Handel in a keyboard contest, in which the latter was declared the better organist and Scarlatti the better harpsichordist. It has been suggested that he spent a period from 1719 in Palermo, but his earlier connection with the Portuguese embassy in Rome led him before long to Lisbon, where he became music-master to the children of the royal family. This employment took him in 1728 to Madrid, when his pupil the Infanta Maria Barbara married the heir to the Spanish throne. Scarlatti apparently remained there for the rest of his life, his most considerable achievement the composition of some hundreds of single-movement sonatas or exercises, designed largely for the use of the Infanta, who became Queen of Spain in 1746.

The keyboard sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti survive in part in a number of eighteenth-century manuscripts, some clearly from the collection of Queen Maria Barbara, possibly bequeathed to the great Italian castrato Farinelli, who was employed at the Spanish court, and now in Venice. Various sets of sonatas were published during the composer’s lifetime, including a set of thirty issued, seemingly, in London in 1738, and 42 published in London by Thomas Roseingrave in 1739, including the thirty already available from the earlier publication. In more recent times the sonatas were edited by Alessandro Longo, who provided the numerical listing under L, and in 1953 the American harpsichordist Ralph Kirkpatrick offered a new listing, distinguished by the letter K. Stylistic grounds have suggested a further changed listing by Giorgio Pestelli, under the letter P., and proposing a new chronology, while Emilia Fadini, in a complete edition for Ricordi, offers a further re-ordering, based in part on the Venice volumes.

Kirkpatrick’s listing of the sonatas, based on the chronological order of the available sources, starts with the thirty Essercizi per gravicembalo offered for sale in early 1739 by Adamo Scola, ‘Musick Master in Vine Street, near Swallow Street, Piccadilly’. The publication included a dedication in Italian to the King of Portugal and a prefatory note for the purchaser, denying serious intention and modestly suggesting rather ‘lo scherzo ingegnoso dell’Arte’. The listing continues primarily with the Venice volumes, in chronological order of compilation.

[1] The Sonata in A major, K.280/L.237/P.395, is included in the fifth volume of the sonatas preserved in Venice, dated 1753. Marked Allegro, it starts with a lively figure in the right hand, immediately imitated in the left, but continuing with right-hand chords leading to a final F minor, before the first section is repeated. The chordal passage continues, leading at the last moment to A major once more, after which the second half of the movement is repeated.

[2] The Sonata in D minor, K417/L.462/P.40, marked Allegro moderato, is a fugue. The subject, heard first in the tenor register, is a version of the descending scale, answered a fifth higher, followed by the entry of a third voice. Further episodes occur, with the easily recognisable subject heard in a series of varied entries. It is included in the ninth Venice volume of 1754.

[3] The Sonata in B flat major, K.440/L.97/P.328, is a Minuet, its two sections repeated. It is included in the tenth Venice volume of 1755.

[4] The Sonata in D major, K.511/L.314/P.388, is included in the twelfth Venice collection, dated to 1756, and is marked Allegro. As it proceeds it moves to a passage of modulation, exploring remoter keys, and continuing into the second part of the sonata.

[5] The primary source for the Sonata in C major, K.200/L.54/P.242, is the second of the Venice volumes, dated 1752. It is marked Allegro and after the opening passage moves forward into modulations that reach their destination of G major, as the repeated first section comes to an end, duly returning to the original key in the second part of the sonata.

[6] The Sonata in F minor, K.467/L.476/P.513, is found in the eleventh Venice volume, dated 1756. It is marked Allegrissimo and is full of those short repetitions that are a frequent element in Scarlatti’s style of writing.

[7] The Sonata in C major, K.231/L.409/P.393, appears in the third Venice volume, dated 1753. Marked Allegro , it is characterized by a short rhythmic figure often repeated.

[8] The Sonata in B flat major, K.488/L.Supp.37/P.382, marked Allegro, is included in the twelfth Venice volume of 1756. The lower second voice enters in imitation of the first at the beginning of the sonata and the opening motif returns in an unusual key to open the second half of the sonata.

[9] The Sonata in F major, K.541/L.120/P.545, an Allegretto in 6/8, is preserved in the thirteenth Venice volume, dated 1757. The flow of the second part of the sonata is suddenly interrupted on three occasions by silent bars, after which due modulation proceeds.

[10] The Sonata in D major, K.336/L.337/P.262, marked Allegro, is found in the seventh Venice volume, dated 1754. It starts with a descending figure, and in its second section explores dramatic minor keys.

[11] The Sonata in G major, K.390/L.234/P.348, is included in the ninth Venice volume, dated 1754. The second part enters in imitation of the first in a sonata that explores a full range of the keyboard.

[12] From the sixth Venice volume, dated 1753, comes the Sonata in C major, K.308/L.359/P.318, marked Cantabile. Relatively simple in structure, the melodic interest is principally in the right hand throughout.

[13] The Sonata in D major, K.118/L.122/P.266, is found in the fifteenth Venice volume of thirty sonatas, dated 1749. Marked Non presto, the sonata involves hand-crossing and has a number of passages of trills.

[14] The primary source of the Sonata in B flat major, K.528/L.200/P.532, is the thirteenth Venice volume, dated 1757. Marked Allegro, it again brings passages of handcrossing and makes continuing use of figures of descending octaves.

[15] The Sonata in G major, K.260/L.124/P.304, marked Allegro, is included in the fourth Venice volume, dated 1753. It is a work of almost perpetual motion and includes a number of changes of key signature.

[16] The Sonata in D major, K.458/L.212/P.260, is found in the eleventh Venice volume, dated 1756, and is marked Allegro. It is characterized by a use of pedal-point.

[17] The Sonata in C minor, K.362/L.156/P.159, found in the eighth of the Venice volumes, dated 1754, has the tempo direction of Allegro. There is continued motion throughout the sonata.

[18] The present recording ends with the Sonata in C major, K.133/L.282/P.218, which is included in the fifteenth Venice volume, dated 1749, and is again an Allegro. It includes modulation to remoter keys, use of chromatic notes and passages in octaves in a work that typifies the variety Scarlatti achieves, while retaining always his own characteristic musical language.

PROKOFIEV COMPLETE SYMPHONIES BY MARIN ALSOP - PART 3

Prokofiev’s Symphony No 4, Op 47, was largely derived from the ballet L’enfant prodigue and written in the autumn of 1929 and spring of 1930. A response to a commission for the fiftieth anniversary of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, it was first performed in Boston on 14 November of the latter year, to a relatively luke-warm reception. The composer was able to make use of music that had not been used in the ballet and to provide symphonic development of the material, as he made clear to Koussevitzky, who had commissioned the work and had reservations about this re-use of earlier material. The work was revised in 1947 and re-issued as Opus 112 in its new form, lengthened and enriched in orchestration by the addition of a piccolo clarinet, piano and harp. 

 The symphony, in both versions, starts with a newly composed and later extended introduction, leading to music associated with the riotous friends of the second episode of the ballet. This is followed by a lyrical and gentler second subject, a melody introduced by the flute. Following the principles of tripartite first-movement form, the earlier material is developed, to return in a varied recapitulation. The second movement is based on the final episode of the ballet, the return of the Prodigal Son, with the father’s love for his son given again at first to the flute, with increasing prominence for the piano and harp. The seductress provides the substance of the third movement, her music now further developed to suggest a scherzo and trio. The final Allegro risoluto has material from the first scene of the ballet, duly developed, and secondary material that suggests a march in its insistent rhythm. The motor rhythm of the coda leads to a reminiscence of the opening of the symphony, now transformed, as the work comes to an end. 

 The Prodigal Son was the fourth and last ballet-score that Prokofiev wrote for Dyagilev. The commission, offered in the autumn of 1928, was eventually accepted, after some hesitation, but once agreed, it was completed in a remarkably short time. Dyagilev’s collaborator Boris Kochno provided a scenario based on the biblical parable of the Prodigal Son and the finished work, after rehearsal in Monte Carlo, opened on 21 May 1929 at the Théâtre Sarah-Bernhardt in Paris. Choreography, lacking the realism Prokofiev expected and earning his dislike, was by Balanchine and the décor was by Georges Rouault, after Matisse had refused the undertaking. The part of the Prodigal was danced by Serge Lifar and that of the seductress by Felia Dubrovska. The programme of this last season for Dyagilev’s Ballets russes began with Stravinsky’s Renard, conducted by the composer, followed by Prokofiev’s ballet, which he conducted himself. These were succeeded by Auric’s Les fâcheux and the Polovtsian Dances from Borodin’s Prince Igor. The Prodigal Son shared the success of the programme and the season continued in Berlin and London. In August, however, Dyagilev died in Venice, where he was accompanied by Lifar and Kochno. His death ended a remarkable era in Russian ballet and a career that had brought commissions from Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Poulenc and other composers, with parallel collaboration from some of the most distinguished artists and dancers of the time. 

 Kochno’s scenario is in three scenes and ten episodes. The Prodigal Son leaves home, meets friends and then the seductress, followed by a dance for the men. In the second scene the Prodigal Son is seen with the seductress, drinks and is robbed, waking up to remorse. In the final scene the spoils are divided and the Prodigal returns home, to be welcomed by his father. The moral point of the parable, the reaction of the elder brother, is omitted. 

 The first episode, The departure (the Prodigal Son leaves his father and his sisters), contrasts a vigorous and angular Allegro risoluto with a gentler clarinet melody, leading to a lyrical Andante espressivo. The first two elements return in contrast and the episode ends with the clarinet melody. The meeting with the boy’s friends is at first dominated by the motor rhythms that are a common feature of Prokofiev’s writing, but there is a place for equally characteristic lyrical melody. The seductress is given sinuous woodwind melodies and there is contrast in a steadier gait, a reminder of the idiom of the Classical Symphony. Trombones introduce the men’s dance, leading to an Allegro brusco and typically angular writing. The scene of the Prodigal Son and the seductress has an introduction coloured by the bassoons, leading to music that recalls the themes associated with the two characters. Drunkenness brings again the music of the boy’s friends and the robbery is introduced by a passage for two clarinets and bass clarinet, to be joined by the strings and other instruments. The scene ends with waking and remorse, introduced by a sober viola melody. Motor rhythms and syncopations mark the division of the spoils, with echoes of the robbery itself. In the return of the Prodigal, as he drags himself home to the presence of his father, there is much to express the latter’s love for his son that was lost and is now found again.

 

PROKOFIEV COMPLETE SYMPHONIES BY MARIN ALSOP - PART 2

The Scythian Suite had originated in music for a ballet Ala and Lolly, depicting the ancient Slavic people, commissioned by Sergey Dyagilev to a scenario by Sergey Gorodetsky—only to be rejected on grounds of being undanceable. The composer then reworked the incomplete score into the present suite, which received an equivocal reception at its première in Moscow—conducted by the composer—on 29 January 1916. A scheduled performance in December was cancelled as the large orchestra needed more players than could be found owing to their being mobilized for the war effort, though not before the influential critic Leonid Sabaneyev had penned a scathing review of the non-existent hearing. Subsequently, the suite found some popularity as a showpiece in the repertoire of international orchestras, where it has remained.

The first movement, The Adoration of Veless and Ala, opens with hectic activity on brass and percussion, rapidly broadening into a surging processional for the whole orchestra. This duly subsides until a low murmuring remains in the depths, then flutes and harp unfold a sensuous theme that gradually draws in the strings with their whirling ostinato patterns. More ominous elements soon come to the fore, but the music retains its unworldly calm through to a quietly undulating close. The second movement, The Enemy God and the Dance of the Spirits of Darkness, launches straight into an aggressive dance with brass and drums much in evidence, while this is succeeded by a hectic string fugato alternating with a bizarre episode for woodwind, tuned percussion and string harmonics. Aspects of all three ideas are brought together in a climactic resumption of the earlier dance, now even more uninhibited as it surges to its brazen ending.

The third movement, Night, starts in near inaudibility on upper strings, against which the woodwind and tuned percussion share a chaste theme that takes on a more ominous import as the harmonic texture fills out and a mystical aura envelops the music. Greater rhythmic activity on woodwind and strings presages a short-lived climax with menacing figures heard on brass, though the initial calm is restored as the music returns to the ethereal realms whence it came. The fourth movement, The Glorious Departure of Lolly and the Procession of the Sun, commences with scurrying activity in the lower strings, settling into a quirky martial rhythm with resourceful writing for woodwind and percussion. This takes on a more rapid dance-like motion, building to a brief climax before alighting on a chord for strings. Against this suspenseful backdrop, gently rotating patterns on woodwind, brass, harp and percussion gradually expand into a resplendent apotheosis which brings about the dazzling conclusion.

The symphonic sketch Autumn was written in 1910 and first performed on 19 July the following year at Moscow’s Sokolniki Park, where it was conducted by the composer. Unlike the earlier Dreams [Naxos 8.573353], where the influence of Scriabin is uppermost, this work looks to that of Myaskovsky in its dark-hued textures and an underlying air of resignation. Prokofiev revised it in 1915 then again in 1934, retaining a fondness for the piece throughout his life. The piece begins with sombre gestures in lower woodwind and strings, establishing a steady motion that largely persists throughout. Speculative activity from upper woodwind adds to the prevailing restive mood, then more aggressive gestures from the strings presage an increase in expressive tension—upper strings assuming the foreground with a soulful melody (made up from those fragmentary gestures) that acts as the work’s main climax before it returns to the earlier ambivalence. Woodwind and brass pursue a tentative dialogue, though the final word is given to strings as the music pensively heads into the depths from which it emerged.

The Third Symphony came about through Prokofiev’s desire to salvage music from his opera The Fiery Angel, on which he worked throughout the mid-1920s and which was accepted for staging at the Berlin State Opera. This failed to materialize (a complete performance did not occur until 1955), and after a concert hearing of the second act in June 1928, the composer reworked portions of the opera in symphonic terms. The resulting symphony (dedicated to Nikolay Myaskovsky) was premièred in Paris on 17 May 1929, Pierre Monteux conducting.

The first movement opens with clamorous gestures from the whole orchestra, whose nagging underlying rhythm persists as the music subsides into a darkly expressive theme for the lower strings. This unfolds at length and takes in variants for oboe and upper strings before reaching a brief pause. From here a second theme emerges on strings, more rhythmically defined than its predecessor, and which is increasingly disrupted by lively activity on upper woodwind and brass. From here an increasingly strenuous development of both themes ensues, gaining all the while in emotional intensity as the initial rhythm re-emerges and the music duly builds to its climactic reprise in a powerful restatement of the first theme on strings with elements of the other ideas, culminating in glowering brass chords then a manic burst of activity on brass and percussion. This dies down to leave the first theme sounding on upper woodwind and strings, against a mesmeric backdrop of interlocking rhythmic patterns lower in the texture—which latter coalesce into the ostinato rhythm from the outset, thereby providing an ominous close.

The second movement begins with chorale-like textures on strings, against which woodwind intone a plaintive theme whose blissful refrain (often decked out with harmonics on strings) reappears at key junctures. The central section conjures a more anxious note with glinting gestures on upper strings that merge into a searching theme on woodwind then strings, but solo violin restores the earlier poise as the initial theme is restated on woodwind. The refrain then appears once more as the music moves eloquently if questioningly to its conclusion.

The third movement starts with strident activity on strings and brass, soon heading into an arresting texture where multi-divided string harmonics evoke an intangible and malevolent atmosphere. At length solo flute is heard, supplicatory chords presaging the central section which focuses on a plangent melody for woodwind and upper strings before opening into some of the work’s most lush textures. At length the string harmonics resume and tension increases, the supplicatory chords this time leading into a coda of stark splendour on brass.

The finale is launched with grinding chordal activity on brass and strings, the motion soon increasing as strings unfold a theme of mounting desperation against assaultive gestures on brass and percussion. Suddenly this activity ceases to leave woodwind and strings musing plaintively on earlier motifs, denoting an element of calm to offset the intensity elsewhere, but this latter inevitably returns in the guise of the earlier ‘desperate’ theme then on to the opening chordal gestures—imbued with a finality that engenders the seismic closing bars.

PROKOFIEV COMPLETE SYMPHONIES BY MARIN ALSOP - PART 1

Without doubt one of the most influential composers of contemporary Russian music, Serge Prokofiev composed seven symphonies in his lifetime. Lets take a look at each CD.

Sergey Prokofiev was born on 15 April 1891 at Sontsovka. His precocious musical talents were fostered by his mother and his first compositions emerged when he was only five. In 1904, on Glazunov’s advice, his parents allowed him to enter St Petersburg Conservatoire, where he continued his studies until 1914 and also quickly left behind the influence of older teachers such as Liadov and Rimsky-Korsakov, arousing enthusiasm and hostility in equal measure. During the First World War he was exempted from military service and after the Russian Revolution he was given permission to travel abroad, first to North America, where he took with him several major scores that were soon to establish his reputation in the West.

Unlike Stravinsky and Rachmaninov, Prokofiev left Russia with the idea of returning home. His stay in the United States was at first successful: he often appeared as concert pianist and fulfilled prestigious commissions for such as the Chicago Opera. By 1920, however, he had begun to find life more difficult and relocated to Paris, renewing contact with Dyaghilev for whom he wrote several ballet scores. He spent much of the next sixteen years in France, though he returned periodically to Russia where his music received qualified approval. By 1936 he had decided to settle permanently in his native country, taking up residence in Moscow in time for the first official onslaught on music that did not accord with the social and political aims of the authorities. Twelve years later his name was included in the notorious ‘Zhdanov decree’. Despite partial rehabilitation, his final years were clouded by ill health and his death—on 5 March 1953, barely an hour before that of Stalin—went largely unnoticed at the time.

As with his older peers Myaskovsky and Stravinsky, Scriabin was a brief yet potent influence on Prokofiev: nowhere more than in Dreams – the ‘symphonic tableau’ he wrote in 1910 and whose première, at Moscow’s Sokolniki Park in the summer of 1911, was coolly received. Undulating lower strings immediately denote the sombre mood of this piece as a whole, out of which woodwind then upper strings sound a note of greater warmth before sinking back into the depths. The process is then repeated, while clarinet then oboe emerge with a highly searching melodic line that also draws in trumpet and horn as the expressive range opens-out accordingly. A brief climax ensues, after which the music winds down gently to an expectant pause. From here cor anglais—drawing on woodwind writing heard earlier—initiates a more restless activity, unfolding in heady waves of sound towards the main climax with its radiant harmonies across the entire orchestra. This gradually subsides in a return to the initial mood of sombre uncertainty, thereby taking the work back to its starting-point where it concludes.

Prokofiev was no stranger to symphonic composition (writing Symphonies in G and E minor as a student in 1902 and 1908, and the first version of his Sinfonietta in 1909) by the time he completed his First ‘Classical’ Symphony in the summer of 1917. He wrote it without the aid of a piano and scored it for an orchestra similar to the later symphonies of Haydn and Mozart, whose spirit it evokes in melodic if not harmonic terms. The composer directed the première in Petrograd on 21 April 1918, thereafter leaving the Soviet Union for almost two decades.

The first movement begins with a lively theme whose opening flourish is complemented by suitably pert woodwind writing, making way for a second theme with graceful strings and artful woodwind in ideal accord. There is no exposition repeat, with the development starting in the minor then focussing on an animated discussion of the first theme before this reaches a bracing climax with the second theme shared excitedly between upper and lower strings. The reprise then deftly curtails the former and makes the latter even more ingratiating: there is no coda, the opening flourish returning as an effervescent close. Halting lower strings open the second movement, over which violins unfold an easeful melody that draws in woodwind as it pursues its tranquil course. Stealthy gestures from lower woodwind and pizzicato strings now begin a gradual crescendo that opens-out across the whole orchestra before subsiding into equable exchanges between woodwind and strings. The main melody is then obliquely reintroduced as the music delights in some subtle tonal slide-slips before alighting on the home key and reaching its conclusion with those halting lower strings. Instead of a minuet, Prokofiev substitutes a gavotte whose strutting rhythm is as commanding as it is humorous. A capering trio section follows, equably shared between woodwind and strings, then the gavotte returns quietly on woodwind before heading to its teasingly understated close. The finale sets off with an energetic theme on upper strings decked out with excited woodwind comments, the latter coming into their own during the whirling second theme and plaintive codetta. The exposition is repeated in full, then the development excitedly utilizes motifs from all three themes before a reprise which finds additional pathos in the second theme and codetta, though the pervasive hectic gaiety is not to be denied its resounding last word.

By the time of his Second Symphony Prokofiev was settled in Paris and intent on writing a piece in the vanguard of musical modernism. While consciously modelled on the format of Beethoven’s final (Op. 111) piano sonata, the present work is hardly a summation—being the result of nine months’ concerted effort to create music made (in the composer’s words) “of iron and steel”. The première, given in Paris on 6 June 1925 and conducted by Serge Koussevitzky, was a failure—the composer admitting he was left none the wiser than the audience by its dense textures and assaultive manner. Many years later he contemplated a revision in three movements, but his death put paid to any such intention and the work was left to find its way out of obscurity to the modest number of performances it enjoys today.

The first movement (its sonata design audible behind the onslaught) commences with strident trumpet fanfares and charging strings that have the first theme—its hectic progress forcefully abetted by brass and percussion. A syncopated transition on strings, with dextrous activity on piano and woodwind, builds remorselessly to the second theme—a tumultuous processional whose vehement progress rapidly dies down in lower strings towards glowering brass chords. What amounts to a development opens with sepulchral activity in double basses, their martial rhythm soon spreading upwards through the strings before taking in the whole orchestra for a veritable riot of activity that culminates in the return of the first main theme. The reprise as such follows a similar course to that of the exposition, with incessant activity on strings and woodwind underscored by ominous anticipations of the ‘processional’ theme on lower brass. This duly assumes the foreground, though this time its progress is curtailed by the return of the first theme in a frantic coda which itself climaxes in a sequence of baleful brass chords.

The second movement—twice as long as its predecessor—is a set of variations on a theme written in Japan almost a decade before. Over restlessly undulating lower strings, this theme unfolds pensively on woodwind before moving to strings as the texture becomes denser and more luminous—a climactic discord on piano leaving matters unresolved. The first variation [8] continues this subdued mood, with the outlines of the theme often obscured by accumulating activity on woodwind and strings, before the second variation [9] brings a greater animation with its ricocheting gestures on woodwind and strings—these latter building to a forceful climax on brass then dissolving in fugitive activity at the end. The third variation [10] is a scherzo whose aggressive exchanges between the sections of the orchestra frequently conceal the theme’s steady unfolding in the depths, while the fourth variation [11] brings an abrupt change of mood: this ‘slow movement’ of the sequence opens with alluring string harmonies before woodwind enter to intensify its often mysterious and withdrawn manner—the music exuding a mood of subdued anguish before reaching a calmly restive close. The fifth variation [12] centres on driving rhythmic ostinatos such as propel matters towards a violent confrontation between the strings and brass, which latter recall the manner of the opening movement and thus endow the work as a whole with a degree of unity. This is further underlined by the sixth variation [13], whose unyielding march rhythm is itself redolent of the earlier ‘processional’ and with much of the ensuing detail related to what had gone before: gradually and inexorably, these disjunctive layers of activity coalesce into a pile-driving march which gains all the while in power and intensity before this culminates in a series of hammered chords on full orchestra. These are summarily dispersed at the close, thereby preparing for the return of the theme much as it first appeared—and with any resolution left in abeyance by the spectral final bars.

SERVICES

I am now offering the following services for amateur composers or anyone who would like to have a clean and nice typesetted version of an antique score/autograph.

TYPESETTING fee:
from autograph (depends on legibility) : 
$10/page for solo instrument score
$18/page for chamber/vocal score

from printed score (without notes correction, old score) : 
$5/page for solo instrument score
$9/page for chamber/vocal score

from printed score (with notes correction, old score) : 
with quote.

Please note that I am doing typesetting of scores from the Baroque era to Contemporary era, mainly for tonal pieces. Atonal pieces will be quote differently.

ARRANGEMENT fee:
Piano Concerto:
Full Score to 2 Pianos:
from autograph (depends on legibility) : 
$25/page
from printed score:
$15/page

I will prefer Paypal as the main payment method. Bank transfer is only available in Malaysia. Anyone who is interested can comment on my post or email me 

Sample: