In spite of Prokofiev’s reputation at the Conservatoire as an enfant terrible, his early works were in fact less radical than those composed at that time by his older fellow pupil Miaskovsky. They are certainly less experimental than many of the contemporary works by Lourié, Roslavets, and Obukhov, and less discordant, less driven by motoric rhythms, than those of the young Ornstein, then working in the United States. It has sometimes been suggested that Prokofiev was influenced by Miaskovsky, but this seems to have been in the form of encouragement to continue with his composing and his efforts to find a personal style rather than in matters of compositional technique.

An early love of Prokofiev’s was the music of Skriabin, whose scores Prokofiev and Miaskovsky spent many hours studying and playing together. Prokofiev’s early piano-roll recordings of works by Skriabin suggest a considerable sympathy and sensitivity for that composer’s harmonic style, although Prokofiev declared himself to be completely baffled by Poem of Ecstasy.

In many ways Prokofiev’s music is the antithesis of Skriabin’s; it is linear and polyphonic, and the harmonies result from an interplay of independent strands. Skriabin’s music is harmonic, and his chords are vertically structured. In the music of Prokofiev and Skriabin there is a division of emphasis between the elements of harmony and polyphony, which, in the Classical style, were held in nice balance. Nowhere is this difference more clearly heard than in their handling of the bass. The individual bass notes in Skriabin’s music are firm harmonic piers; they and the notes immediately above give definition to the complex textures. Collectively the bass notes are not meant to form a significant line but to mark the harmonic structure of the phrase (the bass of Example 2-34 is a notable exception). Prokofiev’s basses often form an independent strand, sometimes seeming to have little harmonic connection with the other lines, but driving toward a common goal at the cadence. Music of this kind requires that the texture be transparent and the harmonies simple so that a meaningful progression is heard from chord to chord, even if over relatively long spans. In contrast, in Skriabin’s harmony the individual chords are ill defined. This difference is connected with the two composers’ use of meter: in Prokofiev’s music it is regular but in Skriabin’s late works both melody and meter are deliberately subordinated to harmonic color. The dense harmonies of Skriabin do not lend themselves to polyphony because, no matter how smooth the voice leading, the aural effect can only be of a rearrangement of harmonic notes in a state of constant flux. Consequently devices such as added notes, internal chromatic lines, and tonal references play a coloristic role in Skriabin’s music; in Prokofiev’s they are often structural.

Prokofiev’s works are tonally structured and use an enlarged diatonic system. Tonality in Skriabin’s music after Op. 59 plays only a secondary role; there is often a feeling of movement between equally weighted pitch centers, related by symmetrical pattern rather than by dynamic dependency. After 1910 the concept of “tonic,” in the sense that we can use the word in connection with Prokofiev, hardly arises in the music of Skriabin. Skriabin followed a different path by substituting harmonic color in place of unity of tonality. In a work such as Vers la flamme, successive stages of harmonic resolution are the equivalent of progressive tonality.¹ Prokofiev found a new way of exploiting tonal functions. In place of the harmonic cycle of 5ths, he used voice-led neighboring-tone progressions, which greatly increased his range of modulation. Tonal connections formerly considered “remote”—including those on the minor 2nd, major 3rd, tritone, major 6th, and leading tone—became “near” because the tonic or dominant triads of these keys bear a neighboring-tone relationship to triads in the original tonality. This is a logical extension of the exploration of more-distant tonal relationships, which were pursued throughout the nineteenth century but which required a new, more polyphonic approach.

There are of course important areas in which the works of Prokofiev and Skriabin have much in common, and these stem from the composers’ involvement with the Russian Nationalist school (particularly the music of Rimsky-Korsakov) and the shared cultural heritage of Russian folk song. Like Skriabin, Prokofiev sometimes employs harmonies related by the tritone and sequences of minor 3rd or major 3rd root progressions; he also makes occasional decorative use of the octatonic scale. All these procedures have precedents in the more descriptive passages in Rimsky-Korsakov’s operas.² Prokofiev’s music at times shares the static character associated with the works of Skriabin, whose harmonic system is based on symmetry rather than on dynamic asymmetrical relationships. The static element in Prokofiev comes from his use of the triad in its own right, independent of supporting harmonic functions. The solution for both composers is to create local excitement by nonharmonic means. Prokofiev in such cases—and also Ornstein and others who share Prokofiev’s use of the single chord—gives his music momentum by the employment of some motoric rhythm. Skriabin used the trill, a frenzied flight of notes, or rapidly repeated chords to create excitement. In the first and last of these devices he was followed by Sabaneev, for example, in the latter’s Sonata Op. 15 of 1915, and in the second by Feinberg in his more frenetic climaxes.³

Two more features in the music of Skriabin which occur also in the works of Prokofiev are the use of 4th chords and progressions based on the tritone and adjacent semitone. Skriabin’s arrangements of 4ths usually contain an augmented interval and result from a particular voicing of dominant-structured harmonies, often containing the added 6th. Prokofiev’s 4th chords, in contrast, may consist entirely of perfect 4ths and are normally the result of a characteristic vertical arrangement of what is basically a linear progression (Example 4-1).

In the case of Skriabin the tritone and adjacent semitone is commonly a root progression, though, as pointed out in chapter 3, it can also underlie the structure of a whole piece. With Prokofiev it is more often associated with his use of neighboring-tone technique and his linear way of defining tonality. In the Rondo Op. 52 No. 2, this progression may be heard in the bass in a number of places, usually in connection with some important tonal leading, for example, bars 1-7 and 9-16 (Example 4-36). In the Sonata No. 3 it occurs in the bass at bars 5455 (Example 4-2) and 70-73. It appears structurally in Visions fugitives No. 1 (Example 4-3), where it is heard in the relationship between the bass progression B-F in bars 9-13 and the E, which begins the piece and encloses the second half at bars 14 and 27.

Polyphony

Prokofiev’s technique is based on the smoothest possible voice leading and logical movement of the independent parts, and it is this, more than anything else, that places him firmly in line with the Russian Classical tradition. A. V. Asaf’yev, in Musical Form as a Process, repeatedly refers to the mainly voiceled nature of Glinka’s harmonic language and the fact that this inevitably influenced the entire Russian school.⁴ Thoughts on the voice-led nature of harmony occur in both Glinka’s and Rimsky-Korsakov’s writings, but Tchaikovsky, perhaps more than any other, placed particular emphasis on the importance of smooth part writing. In many chapters of his textbook on harmony he refers to this subject: “cultivate the all-round development of the freedom of the voices”;⁵ “the real beauty of harmony requires the complete independence of each voice”;⁶ “it is not that chords should be arranged in a particular way but [that] voices . . . evoke one or another arrangement of chords”;⁷ “the beauty and freedom of voice movements . . . [should be] the aim of the student of harmony.”⁸ On the subject of modulation, he wrote: “voice-leading has to be absolutely smooth to give the correct modulation.”⁹

Prokofiev’s view of polyphony is summed up in his own words: “Where, if not in polyphony, can one find the road to innovation?”¹⁰ The polyphonic style of Taneev and Glazunov was based on imitation and the related unifying devices of traditional counterpoint and was limited by fairly stringent harmonic considerations. Prokofiev’s polyphony allows greater freedom to the individual voices, which are united by their allegiance to a common tonal center—an allegiance that may have joint expression in a single moment of time only at key points, such as the ends of phrases. This style is characteristically Russian and can be traced ultimately to the heterophony of folk song.¹¹

An individual strand of Prokofiev’s polyphony may consist of a single line of notes. It can also be formed by parallel movement of two notes or of three- or four-note chords (Examples 4-4 and 4-5), or it may consist of quasi-parallel movement, as in Example 4-6. These parallel progressions are different in effect from those of Debussy and Ravel, which are mainly coloristic.¹² The makeup of the parallel moving chord is sometimes related to a melodic factor; the chord shape in Example 4-5 is a verticalization of the left-hand part of the opening bars of the movement (Example 4-7). The linear pattern may also be of structural importance, as in Example 4-3, where the parallel progression of triads and of chords containing the minor 7th supports the movement of the bass from and toward the important pitches of E, B, F (and B-flat).

Harmony

Prokofiev in his use of harmony divorced the twin functions of stability and concord, which in traditional usage were closely related, and was able to treat both the discord as stable and the concordant triad as unstable. A discordant combination may become stable by static persistence (Example 4-8); because of the repetition such a progression tends to be associated with a pitch center. A discord can also be held in suspension between two pitches (Example 4-9). It may demonstrate the typically Russian device of bimodality, as at the beginning of Example 4-10, where the right hand has a modal tune on A while the fortissimo accents constantly emphasize C in the left hand. (For a fuller discussion of bimodality, see chapter 10.)

A diatonic triad can become unstable if it is part of an ongoing pattern (Example 4-11). Once the pattern is established the ear readily accepts that the triads are part of a continuing procedure until some tonal event intervenes, as at the end of bar 4, to break the pattern and restore stability. A triad also becomes unstable if it upsets tonal expectations and thereby creates a situation which requires further clarification. The initial effect at bars 2 and 6 of Example 4-12 is of instability because a question is raised as to how the phrase may continue.

In this system, where discord and instability are no longer necessarily equated, the role of the primary dominant, unmodified by any plagal or other factor, is almost eliminated. After Op. 14 Prokofiev’s general practice was to avoid the VI progression, even at the final cadence. Where it remains, as in Example 4-13, it is heavily overlaid with added notes.¹³ It is still possible for a dominant-structured chord to have some functional value, but its effect is felt to be local, similar to that of a secondary dominant in Classical usage. The G dominants in the left hand of Example 4-10 affect the lower texture but do not disturb the A modal center of the melody. However the bass C in bar 65 is of a different order of importance from the Cs in bars 57-60, and this difference is the result of the local functional value of the G dominants. Such functions are unpredictable in their outcome: after the extended C chord (with its minor 7th) at bars 103-16 in Example 4-14, the G at bar 118 sounds like a dominant, but it becomes increasingly stable as a result of repetition as far as bar 120. This use of the 0, 4, 7, 10 chord as a tonic and the modal ambiguity between dominant and tonic functions is a particular characteristic of Russian music.¹⁴

The parallel movement of chords mentioned earlier sometimes gives rise to fresh root relationships and inflections of the scale. In bars 1 and 2 of Op. 38 (Example 4-12) there is an instance of the submediant chord of C major moving to the minor dominant and, in bars 5 and 6 an instance of the tonic chord of F moving to the major triad on the flattened leading tone. In bars 15 and 16 of Example 4-15 the dominant 7th on G moves to the major triad on the major 6th of the scale. A common occurrence is for the dominant triad to be temporarily displaced by its neighboring-tone chord on the flattened 5th of the scale. This can be heard in Example 4-16, where the E-flat chord in bars 23 and 25 reverts to the true dominant in bars 24 and 26. A curious example of this device is in Op. 22 No. 12 (Example 4-17). The piece starts in A minor but it is not long before the modal center begins to sound like E, which is also the note on which the piece ends. The role of the E-flat chord, in bar 11, is therefore particularly equivocal in relation to the modal structure of the piece as a whole.

Stepwise but nonparallel progression of triads can also produce inflections of the scale; Example 4-18 shows the tonic triad proceeding to the major triad on the mediant.¹⁵ If such progressions occur in rapid succession the tonal bonds are temporarily broken, so that, in the parallel progression in bar 7 of Example 4-12, one is aware mainly of the whole-tone element, and in bar 17 of Example 4-24 of the chromatic steps. In Example 4-19 there is a mixture of 2nd, 3rd, and tritone root relationships with consequent disruption of the tonality.

Root relationships between chords in static alternation may also be governed by 2nds, 3rds, and tritones. Such passages sometimes occur as part of the buildup toward the introduction of a new section and fill the role traditionally occupied by dominant preparation. In Example 4-10 semitone alternation in the left hand at bars 57-64 occurs in a passage which combines the character of episode with preparation for the return of the second main theme (bar 73). Example 4-20 demonstrates alternation between 7th chords on G and B, with added chromatic neighboring tones to the 5th, leading to a passage in B-flat. In Example 4-21 there is an alternation of B and B-flat chords over a pedal C, which introduces a secondary theme. Passages of this type create tension, which is felt to be released when the new theme enters on a stable even if discordant harmony.

If Prokofiev wants to relax tension at the end of a phrase his methods are more traditional and may include some form of progression in 5ths as well as a cadential formula (Example 4-22a). These do not have to be descending 5ths, as any arrangement of 5ths in approaching the cadence relaxes tension after the emphasis on 2nds, 3rds, and tritones elsewhere (Example 4-22b). Neither do they have to be successive steps: in Example 4-22c the relationship between the chords marked is made sufficiently clear by their quality of sound, which distinguishes them from the intervening passing combinations. The cadence will normally be modified by some form of plagal element, either introduced into the dominant chord or affecting the harmonic relationship (Examples 4-16, bar 26, and 4-24, bars 18-19). Alternatively a neighboring-tone modification to the chords avoids what would, in this context, be the banal effect of the V-I progression (Example 4-23).

Whether building or relaxing tension Prokofiev sometimes introduces notes of the future dominant or tonic chord into the bass line in approaching a new tonality. These can be heard as an early indication of the tonal outcome.¹⁶ In Example 4-24 the bass A-sharps and the descending chromatic line lead respectively to the principal pitches of B and G, as the bass (E, B, G) prepares the way for the return to C major. In Example 4-25 (from as early as bar 61) notes of the dominant chord in the bass build up gradually toward a C cadence. In Example 4-26 A, C, and E-flat in the bass lead into the F harmony of the theme at bar 40; and in Example 4-27—which follows a repeat of bars 15-18 (Example 4-24)—G, E, and C are emphasized in the bass, giving an extended bass sequence of E, B, G, E, C (bars 102-12) in the approach to the final return of C major.

Tonality

The concept of tonic still remains, but because there is no cycle of 5ths with its all pervasive hierarchy of functions, the tonic is no longer the constant and automatic focus. There is a need for some alternative system to give emphasis to the tonic. This is achieved in three ways. The first is to draw attention to the tonic triad by holding on to it for a long time. In turn this creates the necessity to ginger up the chord with some form of rhythmic interest, and so the motor rhythm becomes an essential feature of the style. The second is to load the triad with added notes; Prokofiev’s favorite was the augmented 4th from the root, because of its strong chromatic tendency within the chord.¹⁷ There is no need for the resolution to take place; on the contrary the effect is heightened if the device is continued and resolution is withheld (Example 4-8).¹⁸ The third method of strengthening the tonic is by use of the ostinato principle, which does away with the need for prolonged repetition of the triad and can stabilize otherwise wide-ranging progressions.¹⁹ In its use of ostinatos, as also in its employment of voice leading and neighboring-tone technique, Prokofiev’s music is in line with both Russian Classical theory and the methods of folk song. In peasant dances, repetitive rhythms and ostinatos have a unifying function similar to that in Prokofiev’s music, and neighboring-tone gravitations, both local and long-range, are the structural basis of folk melody. Prokofiev’s work may be said to represent the final outcome of the struggle by the Russian Nationalist school to reconcile Western tonal-based structures with the idioms of native song.²⁰

Within Prokofiev’s system flats and sharps still have their traditional opposite tendencies, which may be demonstrated in two ways. The first is in the balanced tonal expansion of a phrase: in Example 4-12 the depressive effect of the flats in the first half is balanced by the upward sweep of the sharps toward the end. The second can be heard in Example 4-28, where the flats and naturals enhance the contrary-motion drive toward the cadence. Prokofiev exploited this second principle to develop a system of powerful neighboring-tone gravitations such as those in Example 4-29, which in his music often replace the traditional final cadence.²¹ The seeds of this technique are clearly seen in a traditional setting in his Sonata No. 1 in F minor, where, at cadences, octaves in the outside parts are constantly approached from the augmented 6th. It is one of the features of his style which he parodies in Sarcasms Op. 17. In bars 18 and 19 of the first piece in this set (Example 4-30), there is the familiar contrary-motion approach, this time to the octave E. The augmented 6th, however, is telescoped into the octave of resolution, creating the effect of running into a brick wall rather than the anticipated orderly cadence.

When considering the tonal expansion of a passage over a longer span, the predominance of 2nds, 3rds, and tritones with an occasional 5th in the harmonic relationships is again evident. Bars 63-87 in the first movement of Sonata No. 5 are based on the plan:

D, G-sharp, E, B-flat, E, D, B-flat, E, B-flat

Bars 1-19 in the last movement follow the sequence C, (F), G-sharp, C-sharp, E, B. Op. 17 No. 1 and the opening of Op. 22 No. 4 both employ a series of major 3rd steps (Examples 4-31 and 5-13). The tritone again features in the outline of multimovement works; Sonata Op. 14 has four movements arranged D, A, G-sharp, D, and Sonata No. 5 has three movements on the plan C, G-flat, C. The semitone relationship too occurs in overall planning; Sarcasms Op. 17 No. 2 is based throughout on E as the central pitch but it is introduced by a phrase that cadences on E-flat, before moving to E in a form of sequence. Shorter pieces are sometimes modally variable. Op. 22 contains a number of interesting examples: it has already been noted that No. 12 hovers between E and A; at the beginning of No. 19 the various strands focus on E, and the piece ends in C, but with the triad in first inversion; No. 14 is based throughout on the pitches of C and A.

Modulation in Prokofiev’s neighboring-tone system of progression is effected by the same means that has already been dealt with in connection with movement from chord to chord and phrase to phrase. Root progressions such as those in Example 4-12 are an expansion of the local tonality. However the colorful and mildly surprising nature of these chords creates emphasis, and the lack of cyclical 5th relationships means the chord easily becomes detached from the local tonality. Once prolonged beyond the prevailing harmonic rhythm, such a chord rapidly becomes a new stable center of pitch, or “tonic.”

Prokofiev’s methods of modulation include the following:

(1) Thinning out the texture and proceeding directly from one tonic note or scale to the next (Example 4-32).

(2) Superimposing the new tonic on the preceding chord (Example 4-33).

(3) Interposing a tonally neutral area (Example 4-34).

(4) Progressive chromatic alteration (Example 4-35).

Triadic progressions effecting the modulation include the following (in each case the second chord becomes the new tonic):

(1) One note held while two move chromatically: tonic major to mediant major, tonic major to flat submediant major, tonic minor to mediant minor (major 3rd of scale), tonic minor to flat submediant minor.

(2) One note moves a whole tone and two move chromatically: dominant to subdominant minor.

(3) All move chromatically: tonic major to submediant minor.

(4) Parallel chromatic movement: dominant to flattened submediant (both major or both minor), tonic to flattened supertonic (both major or both minor), dominant to sharpened subdominant major.

(5) Parallel whole-tone movement: submediant to dominant minor, tonic to flattened 7th.

This examination of Prokofiev’s style concludes with a review of the opening section of the Rondo Op. 52 No. 2, originally composed in 1928 (Example 4-36). This passage sums up many of the characteristics of Prokofiev’s technique. The following points are especially noteworthy:

(1) The major 3rd root progression I-VI-I (bars 1-4).

(2) The reinterpretation of B-flat as A-sharp in the following bar (bars 16-17).

(3) The avoidance of dominant chords in root position (bars 3, 6, 13, and 23).

(4) The use of unresolved neighboring tones in the melodic flourishes (bars 3439, which are a repeat of the passage in bars 8-13).

(5) The thinning out of the texture to an octave or 4th and the superimposition of a secondary chord as a link to B minor and B-flat respectively (bars 24 and 32).

(6) The use of the major 2nd, augmented 4th, and major 7th added to the tonic chord at its third appearance (bars 26-30).

(7) The progressive addition of melodic and rhythmic interest to the opening tune at its later appearances and the extension of melodic range on approaching a climax.

(8) The linear ornamentation of the V-I progression at bars 6-8, 13-16, and 3942, including the double 4th approach to B-flat in the treble at bars 6-7 (E-flat, F, B-flat).

(9) The careful preparation for the F major ending of the section at bar 42 (in place of the traditional modulation to the dominant) by:

a. The choice of the last inversion of the G chord in bar 3, which tends to isolate the bass and prepares the way for b.

b. The use of the flattened dominant at bar 5, which leads to the following B-flat cadence and prepares the way for the F major ending.

c. The now stronger use of the G 7th at bar 13, which is here a secondary dominant to the C chord, within which it occurs.

d. The still stronger use of the G 7th in bar 23, now cadencing on C.

Prokofiev’s work was in many ways representative of the mainstream of development in Russian music. Chapter 5 deals with additional aspects of technique found in his works and those of his contemporaries—techniques closely associated with the Russian Nationalist school and with folk song.