Prokofiev, Sergei (EN)

Prokofiev Sergei Sergeyevich, *23 (11) April 1891 Sontsovka (Yekaterinoslav Governorate, now Donbas, Ukraine), †5 March 1953 Moscow, Russian composer and pianist.

He was the only son of Sergey Alekseyevich Prokofiev, manager of the Sontsovka estate, and Mariya Grigorievna (née Zitkova), who gave him his first piano lessons. Initially, he took harmony lessons from J.N. Pomerantsev, and in the summer months of 1902 and 1903, R. Glier taught him musical forms, composition and instrumentation. In 1904, Prokofiev was admitted to the St. Petersburg Conservatory, where he studied harmony and counterpoint with A. Ladov, piano with A. Winkler and instrumentation with N. Rimsky-Korsakov; there, in 1906, he met N. Myaskovskiy and they became lifelong friends. In 1908, he began studying conducting in N. Tcherepnin’s class. After completing his composition studies, Prokofiev continued his piano studies under A. Yesipova from 1909. Prokofiev’s first opus works were immediately published by P.I. Jürgenson. The composer also became acquainted with the critic W. Karatïgin and the organisers of the Evenings of Contemporary Music. In 1908, at one of these concerts, Prokofiev performed his piano piece Navazhdeniye (‘Suggestion diabolique’), Op. 4 No. 4 (this was his compositional debut outside the conservatory), and during subsequent concerts he met representatives of the Russian musical and literary avant-garde.

After the premiere of his Piano Concerto No. 1 in D flat major in 1912, critics began to perceive Prokofiev as the leader of the Russian musical avant-garde. Prokofiev spent the summer of 1913 in London, Paris (where he attended a performance of I. Stravinsky’s Petrushka), and then in Royat. Upon his return to Russia, the premiere of his Piano Concerto No. 2 in G minor caused a huge sensation. Reviewers reacted diametrically to the new work: alongside disapproval, there was enthusiasm for the concerto’s innovative nature and predictions of a great career for Prokofiev (V. Karatïgin, B. Asaf’yev); during this period, the label “musical futurist” began to cling to him. In the spring of 1914, Prokofiev passed his diploma examinations: on 25 March in piano (presenting, among other works, his Piano Concerto in D flat major), and on 7 April in conducting (leading a school performance of Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro); a month later, he won the university’s Anton Rubinstein Competition. In June and July of that year, he was back in London, where Ballets Russes season under S. Diaghilev continued; it was then that he first saw I. Stravinsky’s The Firebird and M. Ravel’s Daphnis et Chloé. He also became acquainted with Diaghilev, who commissioned him to write a ballet with an ancient Russian theme. The libretto was entrusted to the leader of the acmeists, S. Gorodetsky. Work on this new project delayed progress on the previously planned opera The Gambler. In February 1915, Prokofiev travelled to Milan to present the content and music of the ballet Ala and Lolli to Diaghilev, who was then visiting there. However, Diaghilev suggested that he compose a new ballet based on the story about a buffoon, taken from A. Afanasyev’s fairy tales. Upon his return to Petrograd, Prokofiev quickly tackled the new commission, transforming the material from the ballet Ala and Lolli into the four-movement Scythian Suite. At the turn of 1915/16, he presented his works, the Sinfonietta Op. 5, and the Scythian Suite, at renowned concerts conducted by A. Siloti in Petrograd. During this time, he also worked intensively on the opera The Gambler, for which he prepared his own libretto based on F. Dostoevsky’s short novel. In the autumn of 1916, Prokofiev signed a contract with S. Koussevitzky, owner of the Gutheil company, which published his works for the next 20 years, initially in Moscow, and after the revolution, in Paris. The February Revolution of 1917 found him in Petrograd. Influenced by the events of the time, he composed the cantata Seven, They Are Seven to a text by K. Balmont; during the summer, he wrote Piano Sonata No. 3 in A minor, Piano Sonata No. 4 in C minor, and Classical Symphony; he also completed Violin Concerto No. 1 in D major, begun the previous year. After the outbreak of the October Revolution, Prokofiev decided to emigrate, a move facilitated by the Soviet People’s Commissar, A. Lunacharsky. The composer’s route to North America took him through Siberia, Vladivostok, Tokyo, Yokohama, Honolulu, and San Francisco. In September 1918, he arrived in New York. Prokofiev’s performances, featuring music by A. Scriabin, S. Rachmaninoff, and his own, prompted many ironic remarks from New York critics. However, some works achieved considerable popularity, such as Tales of an Old Grandmother. In 1919, the director of the Chicago Opera, C. Campanini, commissioned Prokofiev to write an opera based on the script of C. Gozzi’s comedy The Love for Three Oranges. In the autumn of that year, the composer began work on the opera The Fiery Angel, with a libretto based on the novel by V. Bryusov.

In April 1920, Prokofiev returned to Europe. In Paris, he met with Diaghilev again about staging Chout [Tale of the Jester Who Outwits Seven Other Jesters]. The work required some alterations, suggested by Diaghilev, including revisions to the score, additional orchestration, and the insertion of interludes. Through his acquaintance with S. Koussevitzky, Prokofiev established contacts with prominent figures in French musical life, including M. Ravel and E. Ansermet. He also met P. Picasso and Stravinsky. In the autumn of 1920, he returned to America, where he gave a series of piano recitals in California. Meanwhile, his reputation in Paris continued to grow. Contributions to this included S. Koussevitzky, who arranged for the Paris performance of Scythian Suite (the audience received the work enthusiastically, while the critics were rather reserved), and S. Diaghilev, who helped the Chout performance achieve a high artistic standard. In the summer of 1921, Prokofiev settled in Brittany, working on his Piano Concerto No. 3 (dedicated to K. Balmont); he also composed five songs to words by Balmont, Op. 36, which he dedicated to the Spanish singer Lina Lubera (pseudonym of Carolina Codina), his future wife (married in 1922).

In October 1921, Prokofiev travelled to the United States for the third time, where he participated as soloist in the premiere of his Piano Concerto No. 3 in C major and conducted the long-awaited world premiere of the opera The Love for Three Oranges. After returning to Europe, the composer settled in Ettal (Bavaria) and worked on the opera The Fiery Angel. During this time, a series of mutual critical remarks about each other’s works led to a break in his social relations with Stravinsky, and Diaghilev, influenced by Stravinsky’s opinion, decided against staging Prokofiev’s opera. However, Prokofiev’s collaboration with S. Koussevitzky remained strong, and under his baton the Violin Concerto No. 1 was premiered in 1923, followed in 1924 by new performances of Piano Concerto No. 2 in G minor (in a new version) and the cantata Seven, They Are Seven.

At the same time, Prokofiev continued his piano career. During one recital (5 December 1924) in Paris, he performed his four piano sonatas (No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5); on 15 and 20 January 1925, he performed in Warsaw. At the turn of 1925/26, he undertook his fourth concert tour of the United States (including seven concerts with the Boston Symphony Orchestra under Koussevitzky), and in the spring, a tour of Italy. In 1926, Diaghilev commissioned another ballet from Prokofiev, this time proposing a “Soviet theme.” The work was intended to depict the economic and social changes that took place during the first years of Bolshevik rule in Russia, while also expressing a fascination with modern technology and the so-called “cult of machine.” The Steel Step, first performed in Paris on 7 June 1927, choreographed by L. Massine, provoked contradictory reactions: enthusiasm from French and English audiences, who began to view Prokofiev as a champion of communism, and, for precisely the same reasons, outrage from Russian émigrés. French critics recognised the work’s constructivism and asceticism, while a dozen or so years later Soviet critics condemned it for “formalism.” Even more unfortunate was the fate of the opera The Fiery Angel, which Prokofiev considered his masterpiece and which he had worked on for about seven years. The composer only managed to secure a stage performance of Act 2 of this work (Paris 1928). Wanting to “save” the music of this opera, at least partially, he fashioned his Symphony No. 3 in C minor from extensive sections of the score, and it was premiered in Paris in 1929 under the direction of P. Monteux.

In 1927, Prokofiev renewed his contacts with friends and the musical community in his homeland, where some of his works were performed. The favourable attitude of the authorities at the time and the composer’s fame in the West, encouraged him to undertake a concert tour (Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Kharkiv, and Odessa), including Russia’s most prestigious musical institutions. Prokofiev’s performances (in Moscow alone, the composer appeared eight times over two months) were met with rapturous applause and took place in an atmosphere exceptionally receptive to contemporary music. Preparatory work also began for a production of The Gambler at the Academic Opera Theatre in Leningrad. Prokofiev revised the first version of the opera (likely incorporating some suggestions from V. Meyerhold, the staging director); however, the world premiere was prevented by protests from the Union of Proletarian Musicians. The new version was ultimately performed at the Théâtre de la Monnaie in Brussels. Prokofiev achieved great success with the world premiere of another ballet, commissioned by Diaghilev. In 1929, the Sarah Bernhardt Theatre in Paris staged The Prodigal Son, choreographed by G. Balanchine and starring S. Lifar in the title role, performed alongside I. Stravinsky’s ballet Renard. In late 1929, Prokofiev suffered a car accident and was forced to temporarily retire from concerts. He used his convalescence to travel to Russia again, although the Moscow musical community received him far less warmly than before. In early 1930, he undertook his fifth tour of the United States (12 symphonic concerts, 11 chamber concerts). During Prokofiev’s stay in Washington, the Library of Congress commissioned him a string quartet, written in the summer and autumn of 1930 (String Quartet No. 1), composed concurrently with the ballet On the Dnieper, composed for the Opéra de Paris.

In 1932, after talks with representatives of the USSR Ministry of Culture and Art and the Union of Soviet Composers, Prokofiev decided to return permanently to his homeland with his family (his wife and two sons, Sviatoslav and Oleg), although the move did not actually take place until the summer of 1936. During the years 1933–35, he undertook numerous concert tours, including the United States (1933), Soviet republics (Ukraine and Armenia in 1934), European countries (including Poland – Warsaw on 6 April 1934, and Vilnius on 2 January 1935), and a long tour with the French violinist R. Soetens through Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis (1935). Between his travels, Prokofiev resided in Moscow, serving as a consulting professor at the Conservatory’s composition department and working on new commissions. In 1935–36, he composed the music for a ballet adaptation of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Initially, the Leningrad Opera and Ballet Theatre, and later the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow, were interested in this work; however, after examining the piano reduction, the Bolshoi management cancelled the contract, arguing that Prokofiev’s score was unsuitable for dancing. Ultimately, the stage premiere took place in Brno in 1938. The music for Romeo and Juliet, also presented in the form of orchestral and piano suites, quickly won the acclaim of Russian audiences and soon became one of Prokofiev’s most frequently performed works worldwide. The symphonic fairy tale Peter and the Wolf, composed in April 1936 at the request of the Central Children’s Theatre in Moscow, likewise achieved immense and lasting popularity.

In 1936, the attitude of official Soviet critics towards Prokofiev’s works changed significantly, prompted by the crackdown on the artistic avant-garde unleashed by the party press. The sharpest criticism was directed at D. Shostakovich’s opera, Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, and soon also at Prokofiev’s Symphonies No. 2 and No. 3, The Buffon, and The Scythian Suite. Misunderstanding the intentions of this campaign, Prokofiev frequently spoke in the press about the need to compose simpler music, more accessible to a wider audience. Even on the margins of his own work, he explored genres recommended by the architects of the cultural policy of the time: mass song and march; he did not shy away from stylised folklore. At the same time, however, he defended the right of composers to express themselves in accordance with their own vision of the work and to pursue innovation, which does not guarantee easy reception. This contradiction was also even evident in some of his occasional works. In 1936–37, Prokofiev composed the monumental cantata Op. 74 to commemorate the anniversary of the October Revolution, with texts by K. Marx, V.I. Lenin, and J. Stalin, as well as excerpts from the USSR Constitution. The commemoration committee deemed the work conceptually flawed, too daring in its sonic language, and therefore ideologically harmful; it was never performed or published during the composer’s lifetime. The 1938 premiere of the Cello Concerto in E minor also ended in failure; the work was poorly received due to its flawed performance, while the press harshly criticised the composition itself, describing it as a manifestation of deepening “formalism.”

In 1938, Prokofiev embarked on the final international concert tour of his career, encompassing Czechoslovakia, France, England, and the United States. A visit to Hollywood inspired him, upon his return to the USSR, to collaborate with S. Eisenstein on the film Alexander Nevsky, a work that has become a landmark in film history. Prokofiev used the musical material from the soundtrack to compose the cantata Alexander Nevsky, considered one of his most distinguished compositions. This success improved Prokofiev’s standing in the Soviet musical community; he was even elected vice-president of the Moscow branch of the Soviet Composers’ Union. In 1939, Prokofiev completed his first opera since returning to the USSR. Despite the work’s agitational content, the time, and setting of Semyon Kotko (1918, during the Ukrainian Civil War) led to numerous censorship interventions, and only a few performances were held. In the spring of 1940, Prokofiev began work on his next opera, Betrothal in a Monastery, whose libretto he wrote with Mira Mendelson, based on R.B. Sheridan’s play The Duenna. The outbreak of war thwarted preparations for the premiere.

In March 1941, Prokofiev separated from his wife, Lina Lubera, and began a relationship with Mira Mendelson, whom he later married in 1948. In August 1941, he was evacuated with a group of other artists to Nalchik in the Caucasus. During his stay in the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, and then in Tbilisi and Almaty, he developed the main framework for the opera War and Peace (libretto based on L. Tolstoy’s novel), the symphonic suite 1941, and the Second String Quartet, which draws on Kabardino-Balkar folk music. In 1944, he composed his Fifth Symphony. Its Moscow premiere in 1945 marked Prokofiev’s final public appearance as a conductor, as a fall soon afterward caused an injury that forced him to withdraw from performing. In 1945, due to worsening health, he moved to the countryside, settling in Nikolina Gora, about 60 km from Moscow. A major event in 1946 was the world premiere in Leningrad of the first part of War and Peace; the censors, however, blocked the staging of the second part, which depicts Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. That same summer in Nikolina Gora, Prokofiev completed his Sonata Op. 80 for violin and piano, a work he had begun in the 1930s. David Oistrakh and Lev Oborin helped promote the piece internationally.

In January 1948, at a conference of Soviet composers convened by the highest party authorities, Prokofiev’s music was subjected to aggressive criticism. Like D. Shostakovich, Prokofiev was accused of “adhering to the formalist tendencies” characteristic of the Western European avant-garde; in practice, this meant that the composer’s most outstanding works were removed from the repertoire. In works composed between 1949 and 1950 (the suite Winter Bonfire, the oratorio On Guard of Peace), Prokofiev attempted to streamline and simplify his style in accordance with official dictates (wide cantilena, marches, illustrative effects, monumentalism reminiscent of mass song), which secured him the approval of the authorities and allowed him to work on the Sonata in C major for cello and piano, Op. 119, and a reworked cello concerto (Symphony-Concerto, Op. 125). M. Rostropovich, with whom Prokofiev became friends in the last years of his life, contributed significantly to the creation and dissemination of these works. As late as early 1953, he was still sketching several compositions simultaneously. He died on 5 March 1953, of a cerebral haemorrhage; he was buried at the Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow.

Lina Prokofieva was arrested in January 1948 and charged with alleged espionage, “attempted desertion,” and contacts with foreign embassies. After nine months of interrogation and torture, she was sentenced to 20 years of exile in the Abez camp near Vorkuta. Released and rehabilitated in 1954, she lived in Moscow until 1974, then moved to Paris and later to London. In 1983, she established the Prokofiev Foundation, based at Goldsmiths, University of London, with the aim of raising funds to finance research on her husband’s life and work, collecting manuscripts and memorabilia, and popularising his works. She died on 3 January 1989, at the age of 91. Her efforts were continued by the musicologist Noëlle Mann, who is also credited with organising and cataloguing the collected materials. In 1994, the Prokofiev Archives were added to the Special Collections of the Goldsmiths College Library. They include a collection of documents and manuscripts that the composer left in Paris in the care of his friends and publisher, Éditions Russe de Musique (Rossiyskoe muzykalnoye izdatelstvo, also known as Gutheil between 1914 and 1947), before returning to Moscow in 1936. They also include a collection of approximately 500 scores, published materials about Prokofiev – books, periodicals, and articles – almost 500 concert programmes, and over 800 recordings of his works on LPs, CDs, cassettes, and DVDs. In 2013, the entire Prokofiev collection was transferred to the Rare Book & Manuscript Library at Columbia University in New York. The Russian Centre for the Memory and Collection of the Composer’s Memorabilia is located at the Municipal School of Music named after him in Moscow. In 1966, a museum was established there, to which M. Mendelson donated numerous personal items of the composer, furniture, and a collection of books and musical materials. On the 100^th anniversary of Prokofiev’s birth, in May 1991, a monument to the composer was unveiled in front of the school building.

Prokofiev was an honorary member of the Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia in Rome (from 1934) and received a gold medal from the Royal Philharmonic Society in London (1944). He was a recipient of the USSR State Prize (1943, 1947, 1951, and three times in 1946), the Stalin Prizes of the First and Second Class (1943, 1947), and the Order of the Red Banner of Labour (1943). He was also awarded the title of People’s Artist of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1943).

For at least half a century, the issue of Prokofiev’s style and artistic personality remained the subject of considerable controversy, with ideological and political arguments often taking precedence over substantive arguments. Until perestroika, these disagreements focused on the assessment of Prokofiev’s creative output during his time abroad, compared to his compositions after returning to the USSR; the only undeniable factor was the biographical basis for periodising his work. Western authors’ positions can be summarised as an endorsement of Prokofiev’s innovation and modernism until the mid-1930s, and a disapproval of his traditionalism and simplification of style after his return to Russia. Soviet musicologists, on the other hand, regarded the earlier years as a period of Prokofiev’s excessive, youthful subservience to the “contentless” Western avant-garde, attributing humanist significance and full artistic maturity to works composed after the composer’s resettlement in his homeland. Since the 1990s, greater importance has been attributed to the pluralism and heterogeneity of Prokofiev’s style, which were determined not only by external circumstances but also stemmed from the composer’s artistic personality, which combined the attitude of an innovator with that of a classicist appreciating the culture-forming role of tradition.

Prokofiev was never associated with any stylistic or artistic movement. The terms “Neue Sachlichkeit,” neoclassicism, expressionism, motorism, cubism, primitivism, and barbarism, often attributed to his work, reflect the various qualities of Prokofiev’s style, which is polygenic yet easily recognisable for its originality. Prokofiev also had a particular predilection for combining opposites; for example, he blended modern constructivism with the aesthetics of classicism, and his characteristic grotesque style can be seen as a continuation of the Romantic scherzo convention, although he used it to satirise 19^th-century emotionalism.

Prokofiev made his mark on the international stage relatively early (around the age of 25), and immediately established himself as a declared anti-Romantic. His dynamic and uncompromising stance was fostered by the general atmosphere of cultural, intellectual, and spiritual life in Russia in the early 20^th century up to the outbreak of the revolution in 1917, a period of extraordinary flowering in Russia of philosophy, literature, and especially poetry (Symbolism, Acmeism, Futurism), painting (Constructivism, Cubism), and theatre (Naturalism, conventional theatre, staged theatre, pictorial theatre). Prokofiev’s first international successes were part of the increasingly rich panorama of cultural ties between Russia and Western Europe. His 1914 collaboration with S. Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes and his acceptance of the movement initiated by I. Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring solidified Prokofiev’s reputation as an avant-garde composer and nurtured his fascination with expansive rhythm, which played a form-creating role in the work, as well as dissonant harmony, freed from the constraints of the major-minor system, and shocking dynamics. Diaghilev inspired Prokofiev to explore Scythian, proto-Russian themes, drawing on an imagined indigenous proto-folklore. Such an aesthetic served to highlight Russia’s cultural otherness, particularly attractive at the time to the West, which was fascinated by the culture of primitive peoples, and simultaneously expressed growing fears of a global cataclysm, of which Russia, beset by social conflicts, was perceived a dangerous source. The idea of ​​Scythianism, in turn, inclined the composer towards a specific type of expression: brutal vitality, rough yet refined primitivism, and an emanation of enormous energy resembling a natural eruption. These types of expression dominated other works of Prokofiev in subsequent years, for example the cantata Seven, They are Seven, instrumental works (e.g. Sarcasms, Piano Concerto No. 2, Symphony No. 2, Toccata Op. 11), and also reappeared in certain fragments of later compositions, for example in the ballet The Prodigal Son (the scene Drunkenness and Despoiling) and in the cantata Alexander Nevsky (the Battle on the Ice movement).

The composer was always interested in expressing intense passions, revealing through music the dark sides of the human soul, obsessions and persecutory manias, states of madness, depression, and the destructive effects of evil. This theme, recurring with varying intensity throughout Prokofiev’s operatic output (characters: the title character of the opera Magdalena, Alexei and the General from The Gambler, Renata from The Fiery Angel, and Lyubka from Semyon Kotko), was coupled with the isorhythmic and ostinato techniques, both characteristic of his compositional craft, and instrumental in creating dramatic tension and extraordinary expressive power. In contrast to these interests was Prokofiev’s fondness for grotesque, parody, and humour. The composer drew on these artistic conventions already in his earliest works, emphasising his break with late Romantic academism and the mystical symbolism associated with Scriabin. The texts of stage works in this movement point to the traditions of commedia dell’arte (The Love for Three Oranges) and Russian folk tales and fairground theatre (The Buffoon). They also draw on local works of satirical fiction (The Gambler after F. Dostoyevsky, Lieutenant Kijé, after Y. Tynyanov). In his music, Prokofiev frequently engaged in a polemic with the past, parodying traditional musical genres and forms such as the waltz, the march (triumphant, wedding, funeral), the love song, and the aria. He achieved a characteristic ironic and sarcastic expression, among others, through alterations of the harmonic structure (accumulation of dissonances while simultaneously flattening the tensions typical of the major-minor system), distortion of classical melodic arcs, caricature of traditional ornamental devices, sharp, “spicy” articulation, bright instrumental timbre, and persistent use of simple melodic-harmonic phrases, bordering on triviality or deliberate artistic absurdity. Prokofiev most often associated humorous effects with a light sound, fresh in its elegant simplicity (e.g., the scherzo from The Love for Three Oranges), while in grotesque parts, he combined qualities that are traditionally mutually exclusive or contradictory to the classical ideal of sonic beauty. For example, he juxtaposed the sounds of flutes and violins in a high register with the glissandi of trombones and tuba in con tutta forza dynamics and pesante articulation (the scene of Ruprecht’s visit to Agrippa in The Fiery Angel).

Prokofiev implemented a relatively mild form of parody in his Classical Symphony (1917), which was intended as an attempt to revive the style of Haydn. Prokofiev “recreated” the diatonic, triad-based melody, the clear sound of a small orchestra, and the classical concept of a symphonic work, while humorously and innovatively violating the rules of chord combinations that governed functional harmony (only the principle of the main key, recurring at key moments, was retained). This idea, essentially a stylistic experiment, met with widespread approval, and as a result, this initially marginal work became one of Prokofiev’s most frequently performed pieces. In this context, the composer can be regarded as a precursor of neoclassicism, a movement whose beginnings are generally associated with I. Stravinsky’s Pulcinella (1920).

Another enduring characteristic of Prokofiev’s style was its marked sense of danceability, understood both as a stylisation of early dances (primarily the gavotte, minuet, rigaudon, allemande, passepied, and in his later works also the waltz and mazurka) and in a choreographic-pantomime sense. Prokofiev often imposed on his music – far beyond the realm of ballet – an organisation appropriate to the expressive movement of the human body, giving it an almost corporeal plasticity and investing individual motifs with the significance of a musical gesture. He reinforced the energy of movement with original pulsations or repetitive rhythmic figures, often with symmetrical (“square”) architecture and, set against this backdrop, irregularly placed, “exploding” accents.

Prokofiev is considered one of the 20^th century’s most outstanding melodists; his emphasis on the rhythmic element, consistent with the changing spirit of musical creativity in the first quarter of the last century, did not come at the expense of melodic inventiveness. Prokofiev generally strove for simplicity and spontaneity of melodic design, while avoiding (with the exception of parody) cliché and banality. He achieved individual results both by limiting himself to diatonicism (a reference to the tradition of Russian song melodics with a lyrical and nostalgic expression) and by employing complex chromaticism, distant dissonant leaps in expressive function, and playfully idiosyncratic ornamentation within the melodic line. Characteristic features of Prokofiev’s melodic style also include frequent shifts of tonal centre and polymelodism, which sometimes serves an important dramatic function, symbolising the relationship between characters or the work’s fundamental ideas. Polymelodism, intensely developed in the opera The Fiery Angel and its related Symphony No. 3, as well as in sonatas (e.g., Piano Sonata No. 2 and Violin Sonata No. 1), contributes to the music’s emotional quality. The contribution of melodic elements, particularly those of a lyrical-cantilena nature, to the structure and expression of a work was not uniform throughout Prokofiev’s oeuvre. The composer initially surprised listeners with the pensiveness, but also with the cool restraint of his lyrical motifs (e.g., the beginnings of Piano Concerto No. 2 and Violin Concerto No. 1), sometimes even with their refined subtlety (e.g., in the songs of Op. 27 to lyrics by A. Akhmatova). Changes in Prokofiev’s melodic style were already evident in the late 1920s in the music for the ballets The Prodigal Son and On the Dnieper, in which the composer somewhat simplified the texture and abandoned the extreme sharpness of sound and the effect of accumulated dissonance. Prokofiev achieved a fully balanced relationship between the cantilena melody and rhythm in the ballet Romeo and Juliet (the sphere of the main characters’ emotional experiences was conveyed through melodic expression of almost Romantic character), while in his last works, he gave precedence, in accordance with the indications of the official aesthetics enforced during the Stalinist years, to the melodic style of song or stylised folklore (Symphony No. 7, the opera The Tale of a True Man, the ballet The Tale of the Stone Flower).

Prokofiev employed many innovative solutions in the field of harmony, which was no longer limited to the unconventional combination of triads (as in the Classical Symphony), but became saturated with sharp dissonances. The tertian construction of chords ceased to be the norm. Traditional sonorities were modified through alterations and non-chord tones outside the tertian framework, while a particularly sharp sound was achieved by adding further thirds to a triad – up to seven-note chords – along with poly-chordal structures and chords built on fourths or seconds. The rate of harmonic change, relatively brisk in Prokofiev’s early works, later slowed down, creating in many places a sense of sonic stasis through the use of ostinatos, pedal tones, or parallelism. In Prokofiev’s music, therefore, two types of overarching pitch organisation can be observed: tonal centralisation, which represents an expansion of major–minor tonality toward the chromatic scale, and ostinato-based centralisation, in which the point of reference becomes a repeated pitch, sonority, or motif.

The distinctive expression of Prokofiev’s music is also influenced by timbre and instrumental colour, a range the composer experimented with even in his late works. He displayed a particular predilection for bright colours, drawn from the high registers of wind and string instruments (e.g., trumpets, flutes, violins, and cellos). To achieve demonic and ominous effects, he emphasised, for example, sounds produced on string instruments sul ponticello pesante (second movement of the Violin Concerto No. 1). He maximised dramatic expression through unexpected combinations of timbres and textures, for example, by contrasting the high, lyrical register of the cello with the aggressive chorus of trombones (second movement of the Symphony-Concerto, Op. 125). Among his most innovative ideas in this field is the sonoristic treatment of glissandi and short figurations in the strings (the scene of making contact with demons in The Fiery Angel, third movement of Symphony No. 3). Prokofiev also valued the richness of the sound qualities of percussion instruments, for example he limited the instrumentation of the third movement of the Egyptian Nights suite to percussion alone.

Prokofiev achieved particularly original results in the field of operatic dramaturgy, notably in his treatment of the human voice. He minimised traditional bel canto singing (most radically in The Gambler), replacing it with declamatory melodics and recitative, whose progression was carefully adapted to the syntactic and semantic structure of the verbal text, and above all, to the intonation patterns of natural speech. Each dramatic character was assigned a melodic or intonation model related to their personality, around which the musical declamation developed. Vocal parts thus became an effective tool for characterisation, conveying not only the characters’ emotional states (the role of Renata in The Fiery Angel is particularly notable in this respect across all operatic literature), but also temperament, mentality, style, and mannerisms associated with their profession. The work’s notation includes detailed instructions on the type of voice production and timbre, as well as the gestures and grimaces that accompany musical declamation. Prokofiev thus somewhat limited the director’s and singer’s inventiveness in constructing a role, expecting performers to exhibit acting skills comparable to those in dramatic theatre. Prokofiev’s explorations resonated with the reformist concepts of W. Meyerhold, who, in the years 1912–14, sought to enhance the melodic qualities of recitation in dramatic plays and to invent a method for notating its rhythmic-melic pattern.

Beginning with Semyon Kotko, Prokofiev, while not completely abandoning his previous operatic techniques, began, in accordance with the doctrine of socialist realism, to incorporate traditional elements, such as melodious ariosos, leitmotifs and musical reminiscences, songs inspired by folk and popular music, stylised dances emphasising certain social and environmental realities, and elements of song form, especially hymns. In some cases, this resulted in an intensification of the work’s propagandistic message, as in Kutuzov’s aria, the epigraph, and the final chorus of War and Peace. However, it also often produced passages of striking dramatic power, as in the ballroom scene, the musical characterization of Platon Karataev, and the depiction of the Moscow fire in the same opera.

A similar stylistic volte-face, largely imposed on the composer by official authorities, can be observed in his cantata-oratorio works. Prokofiev composed them with significant social and patriotic ideas in mind, referencing events from his country’s distant history, while at times also bearing political and agitational overtones. All works in this genre were composed after the composer’s return to his homeland, with only the cantata Seven, They Are Seven, set to a text by K. Balmont, written before his emigration. It is among Prokofiev’s most radical, even experimental, works; the composer incorporated whispered choral and solo passages, choral glissandi, an emphasis on percussion, and the orchestral effect of sonic tumult to convey the panic and chaos associated with the catastrophic vision of the triumph of violence and evil. Of the remaining oratorio-cantata works, only the cantata Alexander Nevsky secured a lasting place in the repertoire, drawing on the most valuable traditions of Russian music. The composer employed archaic elements, as well as themes in the spirit and character of Russian folk song, primarily ancient Russian bylinas and melancholic dumkas, while preserving his own sonic language and drawing on his experience in symphonic and dramatic music. The epic scale and overall concept of the work were inspired by the artistic vision of S. Eisenstein, the creator of the film of the same name.

In his selection of musical genres, Prokofiev took into account the latest trends while simultaneously cultivating tradition. He cultivated virtually all the compositional genres inherited from the previous century, both for concert performance and for the stage. He also composed music for film and dramatic theatre. He repurposed sketched musical themes, and even larger ensembles, with remarkable ease. As a result, many of his compositions exist in several versions, for example, one intended for the stage and another for the concert hall, one for orchestra and one for piano. In the case of works originally intended for the stage (opera, ballet, theatre music), the second version most often took the form of a suite – a cycle composed of the most compelling musical fragments; thus, Prokofiev’s music reached audiences even when operas or ballets were not staged (e.g., the Scythian Suite, suites from Romeo and Juliet). Prokofiev also occasionally attempted to transform the musical material of stage works into a cantata (e.g., Alexander Nevsky) or a symphony, introducing far more extensive formal transformations than in the suites (e.g., Symphony No. 3, in which he drew on material from The Fiery Angel, and Symphony No. 4, The Prodigal Son). The resulting compositions represent a new formal and aesthetic quality, distinct from the original versions.

The genesis of the remaining five symphonies lies entirely within the realm of absolute music. Symphony No. 2, an extreme work in terms of sonic sharpness and massiveness, despite its innovative features, draws on the tradition of composers associated with the St. Petersburg Conservatory (N. Rimsky-Korsakov, A. Lyadov) and the symphonic movement they initiated, characterised by sinister fantasy. At the same time, its formal concept recalls the structure of Ludwig van Beethoven’s last piano sonata, Op. 111, consisting of two movements: a sonata form followed by a cycle of variations.

Prokofiev returned to the symphonic genre in 1944, after a hiatus of more than a decade. Despite the wartime circumstances, Symphony No. 5, according to the composer, was intended to “celebrate man as a free and happy being, his great energy, nobility, and spiritual purity” (S. Prokofiev, Music and Life, “Novosti” 1951, no. 101). This work undoubtedly testifies to the composer’s withdrawal from the contemporary avant-garde and his transition to a more balanced, classical, and universal artistic position. Prokofiev’s earlier eccentricity partially gave way to a renewed commitment to the traditions of Russian music, notably the “heroic symphony” line associated with A. Borodin and A. Glazunov. In Symphony No. 5, Prokofiev synthesised his compositional experience, masterfully combining and transforming thematic ideas developed earlier in his career. The worldwide success of this work, which remains in the concert repertoire to this day, was not matched by the subsequent Symphony No. 6 and No. 7, often described as “youth symphonies” because of the relative simplicity of their expressive means.

Prokofiev’s concertos, however, have become a permanent fixture in the repertoire. He wrote four of his five piano concertos with himself in mind as the soloist, tailoring them to his exceptional technical abilities. His preferred textural and coloristic effects include bravura passages spanning the entire keyboard, dense intervallic clusters, chordal parallelisms, polychordal structures, double octaves, multi-layered textures engaging nearly the full compass of the piano, quasi-toccata motoric figurations, glissandi, and sharply articulated rhythmic drive. Pianistic virtuosity is contrasted with generally subdued, meditative lyrical themes drawing on Russian folkloric idioms (e.g., the slow introduction to the first movement, the fourth variation of the second movement, and the second episode of the finale in Piano Concerto No. 3). In the violin concertos, and particularly in Concerto No. 1, Prokofiev developed new or rarely used technical devices, previously discussed with P. Kochański, such as the rough sul ponticello con tutta forza in the second movement, the complex combinations of arco and pizzicato, and the refined use of harmonics, including double ones. Subtlety of sound and colour (including the interaction of the solo instrument with the harp and flute) and imaginative melodic invention are the dominant features of both violin concertos and distinguish them from Prokofiev’s other works, with the violin, treated with outstanding soloism and virtuosity in Concerto No. 1, taking on the role of coryphaeus in Concerto No. 2, more closely linked to the orchestra than usual in solo concertos. The Symphony-Concerto, Op. 125 for cello and orchestra, composed on the basis of the earlier Cello Concerto, Op. 58, is one of the most technically challenging works of this genre in all of musical literature; the composer was assisted in the arrangement of the solo cello part by M. Rostropovich. Prokofiev utilised the full range of the cello in the solo part, exposing its extreme registers: bass and high, with a delicate violin timbre. The themes, both lyrical and energetically dramatic, are spread out in broad phrasal arcs that demand the utmost skill from the performer, as do the chordal playing, complex pizzicatos, grotesque dialogues with wind instruments, and two-note passages, including tenths. A significant expressive function (irony, sarcasm) in this work is played by the orchestra, from which chamber ensembles of the most diverse compositions were selected. The architecture of Prokofiev’s concertos often contradicts traditional models. Apart from the 1-movement Piano Concerto No. 1, the number of movements varies from three to five (Piano Concertos No. 2 and No. 4 are 4-movement, the Piano Concerto No. 5 is 5-movement), with slower sections often placed at the edges of the form and fast, dynamic, and grotesque movements concentrated toward the centre.

Although Prokofiev cultivated chamber music alongside orchestral composition throughout his career, its artistic significance in his output grew noticeably over time. The early humorous Scherzo, the Ballade for cello and piano, and even the Overture on Hebrew Themes, composed in a matter of days in the United States, are secondary works. Prokofiev began to attach greater importance to chamber music only in the mid-1920s, when he composed the six-movement Quintet for oboe, clarinet, violin, viola, and double bass, Op. 39, from the music for the ballet Trapèze. It placed virtuoso technical demands on all performers, stylistically in keeping with the “Scythian” trend. The Quintet’s frequent polymetric changes, intricate contrapuntal textures, highly dissonant harmonic language (including parallel major sevenths), persistent ostinatos, and aggressive string articulation make it one of Prokofiev’s most avant-garde compositions – and also one of the most challenging for listeners. Composed six years later, the String Quartet No. 1 represents a somewhat different stylistic orientation; Prokofiev consciously drew upon Classical traditions (the composition was preceded by in-depth studies of L. van Beethoven’s quartets), most evident in the first movement (in the activity of the accompanying voices). The work’s mood is created by both the wide-breathed, songful melody and the grotesque scherzo (middle movement). The focus falls on the poetic finale, which is akin in its expressive tone to many scenes from the ballet Romeo and Juliet. In String Quartet No. 2, Prokofiev used the concise melodic style of Kabardian songs and dances, as well as their specific harmony (an emphasis on tritones and seventh chords, polytonality) and performance practices (aggressive articulation, referring to the martial character of the songs, and imitation of percussion instruments).

The Violin Sonata No. 1, Op. 80, possesses an exceptionally dark aura, oscillating between mournful dejection and turbulence, subtle lyricism and heroic soaring. The richness of its colour, registers, and articulation, its inner drama, and its gravity and depth of expression place this work among the most distinguished works in the world’s chamber repertoire. Meanwhile, the Sonata in D major, available in two versions – the original for flute and piano and a transcription for violin and piano (prepared by the composer at the request of D. Oistrakh) – is among Prokofiev’s most serene works, captivating with its classical simplicity of form, yet also with its humour, directness of expression, delicacy of sound, and extraordinary melodic associations (referring to classical dance conventions and opera buffa).

Throughout his creative life, Prokofiev returned repeatedly to the piano sonata, which, unlike most of his other works for the instrument – cycles of miniatures with programmatic character – represented for him the purest, most absolute form of music, while also allowing highly personal expression that defied division into “early” and “late” periods. The composer’s temperament and emotional breadth were already evident in his Piano Sonata No. 1, Op. 1, but it was only in Sonata No. 2, Op. 14, that Prokofiev presented his truly innovative conception of classical form, with exuberant movement that at times grows violent, almost unbridled, or resembles a toccata perpetuum mobile. Dissonant harmony here produces a harsh, emotionally charged sound, sometimes bordering on sonorism, yet refined articulation preserves grace and lightness. The work also demands exceptional virtuosity from the performer. This style continues in Sonata No. 3, Op. 28, a single-movement work, compact yet internally contrasted, with shifting moods and a richly layered, symphonic pianistic texture. Composed almost simultaneously, Sonata No. 4 exemplifies the intertwining of classicising and expressionist tendencies, combining formal perfection with profound reflection. Less acclaimed, Sonata No. 5 (2^nd edition, Op. 135) is darker and less expressive, its finale marked by almost overwhelming bruitism. Prokofiev reached the heights of artistry in the so-called sonata triad: the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Sonatas, Op. 82, 83, and 84. In these works, he synthesised his previous compositional and pianistic experience, creating sonatas that are dramatically compelling, emotionally suggestive, and technically flawless.

Prokofiev was an exemplary interpreter of his piano compositions. His technically phenomenal playing was characterised by rhythmic discipline and precise accentuation, enabling clear and logical phrasing. For Prokofiev, his love of simplicity, naturalness, and restraint of expression meant eschewing empty virtuosity or excessive affectation. The composer of Sarcasms demonstrated a pianistic style marked by enormous intensity and volume of sound, and he also possessed an extraordinary ability to convey poetic, reflective, and melancholic expression.

Prokofiev is one of the most outstanding artistic figures of the 20^th century in music, although his entire oeuvre cannot be assessed based on conventional or superficial criteria. When he decided to return to his homeland, the composer did not foresee the high price he would pay for his existence in the world of domestic art – a gradual but consistent restriction of his artistic freedom in the means of expression used, accompanied by increasing political terror. In his chamber and piano music, this “compromise” was relatively smooth and can be interpreted as a shift from an avant-garde to a classicising stance (traces of this tendency were already present in Prokofiev’s music before 1932). As a composer of stage works, however, Prokofiev experienced the tragedy of failing to realise his own plans, of abandoning many ideas under censorship pressure, and of adopting official dictates that often contradicted his aesthetics, sense of beauty, and artistic temperament. As a result, his later stage works, cantatas, and symphonies (beginning with the 1947 cantata Bloom Mighty Country, Op. 114) are artistically flawed, now rarely performed or even largely ignored. Nevertheless, as a 20^th-century classic, most of Prokofiev’s works have become permanent fixtures in the symphonic, chamber, and solo repertoires, and in recent years also in opera.

Literature: S.S. Prokofjew. Matieriały. Dokumienty. Wospominanija, ed. S. Schleifstein, Moscow 1956, 2^nd ed. 1961 (including: Awtobiografija S.S. Prokofjewa, Polish transl. J. Ilnicka titled Autobiografia, Kraków 1970, and Statji i zamietki S.S. Prokofjewa, Polish transl and ed. J. Ilnicka titled Refleksje, notatki, wypowiedzi, Kraków 1971), German transl. titled S. Prokofjew. Materialien, Dokumente, Erinnerungen, Moscow 1961; S. Prokofjew. Awtobiografija, ed. M.G. Kozlova, Moscow 1973, English transl. titled Prokofiev by Prokofiev. A Composer’s Memoir, ed. D.H. Appel, New York 1979; S. Prokofiew Merci za miły list, selection and Polish transl. J. Ilnicka, Kraków 1970; S.S. Prokofjew i N.J. Miaskowski. Pieriepiska, ed. D. Kabalewski, Moscow 1977; Prokofjev о Prokofjevie. Statji. Pisma. Biesiedy. Wospominanija, ed. and commentary by V.P. Wаrunc, Мoscow 1991; S. Prokofiev. Soviet Diary 1927 and Other Writings, English transl. and ed. O. Prokofiev and Ch. Palmer, London 1991; Selected Letters of Prokofiev, transl. and ed. H. Robinson, Boston 1998; Pisma S.S. Prokofjewa i P.A. Lamma in: Segiej Prokofjew – Wospominanija. Pisma. Statji, ed. I. Medvedeva, Moscow 2004; M. Mendelssohn-Prokofieva O Sergieje Sergiejewicze Prokofjewie. Wospominanija. Dniewniki (1938–1967), Moscow 2004, 2^nd ed. supplemented 2012, German transl. titled Die Wahrheit über Prokofjew – Das Drama der letzten Jahre, «Prokofjew-Studien›› vol. 4, Berlin 2005; Sergey Prokofiev. Sergey Kusevitskiy. Perepiska 1910‒1953, Moscow 2011; S. Prokofiev Voyage en URSS: 1927, French transl. A. Markowicz, Arles 1991; S. S. Prokofiev Rasskazy, ed. A. Bretanitskaya, Moscow 2003; Sergey Prokofiev diaries. 1907–1914: prodigious youth, transl. and ed. A. Phillips, London 2006; Sergey Prokofiev diaries. 1915–1923: behind the mask, transl. and ed. A. Phillips, London, New York 2008; Sergey Prokofiev diaries. 1924–1933, prodigal son, transl. and ed. A. Phillips, London 2012, reprint 2022, New York 2013; N. Mann The Serge Prokofiev Archive in London – A Complex Story, “Fontes Artis Musicae,ˮ CV/3, 2008, pp. 543–547; F. McKnight The Serge Prokofiev Archive Today and Beyond, “Fontes Artis Musicae,ˮ CV/3, 2008, pp. 548–553;

B. Asafiev S. Prokofjev, Leningrad 1927; I. Nestyev Tworczeskij put’ S. Prokofjewa, dissertation at the conservatory in Moscow 1945, new ed. 1957, 2^nd ed. revised titled Żyzń S. Prokofjewa 1973, American ed. titled S. Prokofiev. His Musical Life, New York 1946, 2^nd ed. extended Stanford (California) 1960, French ed. Paris 1946, German ed. titled Prokofjew. Der Künstler und sein Werk, Berlin 1962; A. Goléa S. Prokofiev, in: Musique russe, vol. 2, ed. P. Souvtchinsky, «Bibliothèque Internationale de Musicologie», Paris 1953; T.A. Zieliński Koncerty Prokofiewa, «Biblioteka Słuchacza Koncertowego», Kraków 1959; C. Samuel Prokofiev, Paris 1960, English transl. M. John, New York 1998, London 2000; L. J. Gakkel Fortepiannoje tworczestwo Prokofjewa, Moscow 1960; A. I. Volkov Skripicznyje koncerty Prokofjewa, Moscow 1961; Czerty stilia S.  Prokofjewa:  Sbornik teoreticzeskich statjej, ed. L. Berger, Moscow 1962; O twórczości S. Prokofiewa, ed. A. Chodkowski and Z. Lissa, Kraków 1962; J. Levashov Muzyka baleta „Zołuszka” S. Prokofjewa, in: Woprosy sowriemiennoj muzyki, ed. M. Druskin, Leningrad 1963; S. Slonimsky Simfonii S. Prokofjewa, Moscow 1964; E. Mnatsakanova Nieskolko zamietok ob opierie Prokofijewa ‘Igrok’, in: Muzika i sowriemiennost, ed. A. Lebedeva, Moscow 1965; L.E. Hanson and E. Hanson Prokofiev. The Prodigal Son. An Introduction to His Life and Work in Three Movements, New York 1964; S. Prokofjew. 1953–1965. Statji i matieriały, ed. I. Nestyev and G. Edelman, Moscow 1965; A. Stratiyevsky Nekotorïye osobennosti rechitativa operï “Igrok” in: Russkaya muzïka na rubezhe XX veka, ed. M. Miklhailov and Ye. Orlova, Moscow 1966; V. Kholopova O ritmikie Prokofjewa, in: Ot Lulli do naszych dniej, commemorative book of L. Mazel, Moscow 1967; Yu. Kholopov Sovremennïye chertï garmoniya Prokof′yeva, Moscow 1967; G. Grigoryeva Komiczeskoje w opierie Prokofjewa „Lubow’ k triom apielsinam, in: Woprosy tieorii muzyki, ed. S. Srebkov, Moscow 1968; M. Skorik Ładowaja sistiema S. Prokofjewa, Kiev 1969; V. Seroff S. Prokofiev. A Soviet Tragedy, New York 1969; M. Tarakanov Stil simfonii Prokofjewa, Moscow 1968; M. Aranovsky Miełodika S. Prokofjewa, Leningrad 1969; M.N. McAllister The operas of Sergei Prokofiev, doctoral dissertation at the University of Cambridge 1970; V. Kholopova Woprosy ritma w tworczestwie kompozitorow pierwoj połowiny XX wieka, Moscow 1971; H. Kaufmann The Story of S. Prokofiev, Philadelphia 1971; B. Schwartz Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia 1917–1970, London 1972; S.S. Prokofjew. Statji i issledowanija, ed. V. Blok, Moscow 1972; O. Stepanov Tieatr masok w opierie S. Prokofjewa „Lubow’ k triom apielsinam,” Moscow 1972; Materiały z sympozjum poświęconego twórczości S. Prokofiewa, «Zeszyty Naukowe PWSM w Katowicach» No. 13, ed. L. Markiewicz, Katowice 1973; J. Soroker Die instrumentale Kammermusik S. Prokofjews, Moscow 1973; V. Blok Wiołonczelnoje tworczestwo Prokofjewa, Moscow 1973; W. Delson Fortepiannoje tvorczestvo i pianizm Prokofjewa, Moscow 1973; S. Moisson-Franckhauser S. Prokofiev et les courants esthétiques de son temps, Paris 1974; A. I. Volkov  „Wojna i mir” Prokofjewa: opyt analiza wariantow opery, Moscow 1976; A. Poszowski Właściwości dominanty prokofiewowskiej, ‹‹Zeszyty Naukowe Państwowej Wyższej Szkoły Muzycznej w Gdańsku›› vol. 12, 1976, pp. 37–46; E. Dawnes Prokofjews Oper „Maddalena,” “Österreichische Musikzeitschrift” 1981 No. 10; N. P. Savkina S.S. Prokofjew, Moscow 1981, German transl. E. Kuhn, Mainz 1984, reprint Munich 1993, English transl. New York 1984; J. Jaroszewicz Prokofiew, Kraków 1983; W. G. Ivanchenko Polіfonіja w simfonіjach S. Prokofjewa, Kiev 1983; A. Konieczna Postać, przestrzeń i czas w finałowym akcie „Gracza” S. Prokofiewa, “Muzyka” 1983 No. 3; E. Kröplin Frühe sowjetische Oper. Schostakowitsch, Prokofjew, Berlin 1985; H. Robinson S. Prokofiev, London 1987, 2^nd ed. titled Sergey Prokofiev. A Biography, Boston MA, New York 2002; A. Konieczna III Symfonia S. Prokofiewa. Jej geneza a interpretacja, in: Muzykologia krakowska 1911– 1986, ed. E. Dziębowska, Kraków 1987; D. Gutman Prokofiev, «The Illustrated Lives of the Great Composers», London 1988; S. Prokofjew. Beiträge zum Thema. Dokumente. Interpretationen. Programme. Das Werk, ed. H. Danuser, Yu. Kholopov, M. Tarakanov, Duisburg 1990; H. Robinson Love for Three Operas. The Collaboration of V. Meyerhold and S. Prokofiev, in: Studien zur Musik des XX Jahrhunderts in Ost- und Ostmitteleuropa, ed. D. Gojowy, Berlin 1990; H. Loos Form und Ausdruck bei Prokofjew: die Oper “Der feurige Engel” und die “Dritte Symphonie”, “Die Musikforschung,” XLIII, 1990, book 2, pp. 107–24; M. Yakubov Melodyczne sekwencje u Prokofiewa, “Muzyka” 1991 No. 4; S. Prokofjew. Aspekte seines Werkes und der Biographie, materials from the international symposium in Cologne in 1991, ed. K.W. Niemöller, Regensburg 1992; P.D. Roberts Modernism in Russian Piano Music: Scriabin, Prokofiev and their Contemporaries, Bloomington 1993; S.C.E. Fiess Piano Works of S. Prokofiev, New York 1994; G.P. Ansimov S. Prokofiev: tropoju opernoj dramaturgii. Reżisserskie prikosnovjenija, Moscow 1994; M. Dorigné S. Prokofiev, Paris 1994; R. Sitsky Music of the Repressed Russian Avant-Garde 1920–1929, Westport Ct 1994; E. Antokoletz Hybrid Modes and Interval Sets as Formal Determinants in Piano Sonatas of Albrecht, Scriabin, and Prokofiev, “International Journal of Musicology” III, 1994, pp. 309–338; Th. Schipperges S. Prokofiev, Reinbeck 1995, English transl. J.M.Q. Davies, London 2003; M. Biesold S. Prokofjew. Komponist im Schatten Stalins, Berlin 1996; N. Minturn The Music of S. Prokofiev, «Composers of the Twentieth Century», New Haven 1997; K. Stephenson Melodic Tendencies in Prokofiev’s “Romeo and Juliet”, «College Music Symposium» vol. 37, Missuola (MT) 1997, pp. 109–128; D. Jaffé S. Prokofiev, London 1998, New York 2008; V. Buttino Invito all’ascolto di Prokof’ev, Milan 2000; D.A. Rifkin Tonal Coherence in Prokofiev‘s Music: A Study of the Interrelationships of Structure, Motives, and Design, doctoral dissertation at the University of Rochester 2000, www.scribd.com; D. A. Rifkin A Theory of Motives for Prokofiev’s Music, “Music Theory Spectrumˮ XXVI/2, 2000, pp. 265–290; S.D. Press Diaghilev and the two versions of Prokofievs “Chout”, “Music and Letters”, LXXXII, 2001/1, 51–77; S. Morison Russian Opera and the Symbolist Movement, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 2002; P. Rattalino Prokofiev, la vita, la poetica, lo stile, Varese 2003; D. Nice Prokofiev – A Biography: From Russia to the West 1891–1935, New York 2003;  K. Meyer S. Prokofiew – w 50. rocznicę śmierci, “Ruch Muzyczny” 2003 No. 6; F. Walsh Prokofiev’s Op.38 and Op.135: Crowning the Opus, “The Musical Timesˮ CXLIV, No. 1882, 2003, pp. 21–26; Sergej Prokofjew in der Sowjetunion: Verstrickungen – Missverständnisse – Katastrophen, ed. E. Kuhn, Prokofjew-Studien vol. 1, Berlin 2004; R. Goedicke Sergej Prokofjews viersätzige Klaviersonaten: Studien zu Form und Gehalt,  «Prokofjew-Studien»  vol. 2, Berlin 2004; Schraeg zur Linie des Sozialistichen Realismus?, ed. E. Kuhn, «Prokofjew-Studien» vol. 3, Berlin 2005; M. Davidson The Classical Piano Sonata. From Haydn to Prokofiev, Amersham 2005; U. Wünschel: Sergej Prokofjews Filmmusik zu Sergej Eisensteins „Alexander Newski.” Hofheim/Taunus 2005; R. Swift Sergei Prokofiev. Annals of His Operas As Staged And Performed at Opera Houses And Concert Halls Around the World, St. Paul (MN) 2006; S. Morrison, S. Kravetz The Cantata for the Twentieth Anniversary of October, or How the Specter of Communism Haunted Prokofiev, “Journal of Musicologyˮ XXIII/2, 2006, pp. 227–262; Um das Spätwerk betrogen? Prokofjews letzte Schaffensperiode, ed. E. Kuhn, «Prokofjew-Studien», vol. 5, Berlin 2007; W. S. Gavrillova Opera S.S. Prokofiewa “Ogniennyj angieł”: dramaturgiczeskie i stilewye osobiennosti. Monografija – Volgograd 2008; Sergey Prokofiev and His World, ed. S. Morrison, New York 2008 (includes, among others, Prokofiev and Atovmyan: Correspondence, 1933–1952 with a commentary by N. Kravetz, M. Aranovsky Observations on Prokofiev’s Sketchbooks, S.D. Press “I Came Too Soon”: Prokofiev’s Early Career in America, E. Bergman Prokofiev on the Los Angeles Limited); B. Berman Prokofiev’s piano sonatas, a guide for the listener and the performer (editorial note), New Haven 2008; A. Alekseyev, W. Delson Einführung in die Klaviermusik von Sergej Prokofjew, «Prokofjew-Studien», vol. 6, Berlin 2009; I.G. Vishnevsky Sergiej Prokofjew, vol. 1–3, Moscow 2009; S. Morrison The People’s Artist: Prokofiev’s Soviet Years, Oxford 2008, New York 2009; N. Seinen Prokofiev’s “Semyon Kotko” and the melodrama of High Stalinism, “Cambridge Opera Journal” XXI/3, 2009, pp. 203–236; S. Neef Die Opern Sergej Prokofjews,  «Prokofjew-Studien››, vol. 7, Berlin 2009; K. Bartig Restoring Pushkin: Ideology and Aesthetics in Prokofiev’s Queen of Spades, “Journal of Musicologyˮ XXVII/4, 2010, pp. 460–492; J. A. Ruchevskaya Wojna i mir. Roman L. N. Tołstogo i opera S. S. Prokofjewa, St. Petersburg 2010; L. Le Guay Serge Prokofiev, Arles 2012; S. Morrison The Love and Wars of Lina Prokofiev: The Story of Lina and Serge Prokofiev, New York, London 2013; D. Heetderks Semitonal Succession-Classes in Prokofiev’s Music and Their Influence on Diatonic Voice-leading Backgrounds in the Op. 94 Scherzo, “Intégral” XXVII, 2013, pp. 159–212; V. Orlov Prokofiev and the Myth of the Father of Nations, “The Journal of Musicologyˮ XXX/4, 2013, pp. 577–620; A.A. Berman Competing Visions of Love and Brotherhood: Rewriting “War and Peace” for the Soviet Opera Stage, “Cambridge Opera Journalˮ XXVI/3, 2014, pp. 215–238; K. Bartig Composing for the Red Screen: Prokofiev and Soviet Film, New York 2014; K. Harley Harmonic Function in the Music of Sergei Prokofiev, doctoral dissertation at the University of Toronto 2014, www.scribd.com; S. D. Press Prokofiev’s Ballets for Diaghilev, Oxford 2016; C. Bianchi Sulle ‘Sonate di guerra’ di Sergej Prokof’ev, “Rivista Italiana di Musicologiaˮ, LII, 2017, pp. 183– 232; E. Lewin Opera PRKFV, Jerusalem 2019; Ch. Guillaumier The operas of Sergey Prokofiev, Woodbridge (Suffolk, GB) 2020; Rethinking Prokofiev, ed. R.  McAllister, Ch. Guillaumier, Oxford, New York 2020; V. Buttino Invito all’ascolto di Prokofiev, Milan 2021; N. Seinen Prokofiev’s Soviet Operas, Cambridge 2021; Three loves for three oranges: Gozzi, Meyerhold, Prokofiev, ed. and transl. D.N. Posner, K. Bartig, M. De Simone, Bloomington 2021; N. P. Savkina Nieskolko istorij iz pieriepiski Sergieja Prokofjewa, “Muzykalnaja Akademija” 2021 No. 4; M.G. Raku Wriemia Sergieja Prokofijeva. Muzyka. Liudi. Zamysły. Dramaticzeskij tieatr, Moscow 2022.