Does anyne really know why the Soviet Composer, Sergei Prokofiev has minor twists in his music?

Question

You will listen to a piece by Prokofiev, and what sounds major will suddenly modulate to minor, sometimes for a bar or phrase, sometimes just for a note or two? I LOVE this style, and I just wanted to know why he really did it.

Answer 1

Prokofiev is a 'neo-classical' composer, which means that he takes traditional forms and twists them to make it into something novel. What you're talking about is wit and humour/parody, which is a common characteristic of neo-classical music. Search neo-classical composers and you'll be able to find more of it :). Some composers are Ravel (yes he's actually more neo-classical than impressionistic, because his works have forms which are too clearly defined to be considered 'impressionistic'), Satie, to name some. Have you heard Prokofiev's 'Classical Symphony' yet? If not, I strongly suggest you listen to it - it's full of these twists.

Delicio...he IS one. I did neoclassicism for my 'A' levels music (Cambridge examination board), and he's one of the composers we studied a lot on. Granted that not 100% of his works may be considered neoclassical for some, but his output was mainly neoclassical. Him and Ravel. Their compositional styles reflect neoclassicism strongly, and it's not only the 'Classical Symphony' and 'Le Tombeau de Couperin' that has neoclassical elements either (yes I studied both of those works). What about Ravel's Sonatine then? Are you going to call Ravel impressionistic if you don't think he's neoclassical? Because that's the most commonly misguided notion for most people. They think that since his works sound so much like Debussy's, he's definitely impressionistic. He's not. And you don't have to base your compositions on someone else's models to be called neoclassical, and you don't have to write for 'a double wind orchestra' (just for eg.) to be called one - that would be a very narrow view of the term. In fact, most neoclassical composers' works ARE their own creations, but these works have their roots in the more traditional forms (however distant they may sound) with unique stamps, as opposed to composers like Cage who totally didn't follow classical rules or forms; or Schoenberg (for obvious reasons). Which is why people think it's ridiculous to call some neoclassical works 'neoclassical' since they don't sound like anything traditional. Both of them were considered neoclassical composers for my O levels music too (again, set by Cambridge) - I studied his Classical Symphony for my setwork along with some knowledge of his violin and piano concertos that was required. I didn't get an average of 95% throughout my 4 years of the O level music course and top my school (and possibly the nation) in that subject for nothing.

Answer 2

Prokofiev was NOT a neo-classical composer. Just writing in traditional forms like symphony and concerto does not make you a neo-classical composer. Neo-classicism is all about using archaic models and styles derived from the Classical (and sometimes Baroque as well) era (such as Stravinsky's Pulcinella or Martinu's Concerto for Double String Orchestra, Piano and Timpani). Apart from the Classical Symphony, Prokofiev didn't do this - his symphonies and concertos are very much his own creation and you would be hard pushed to find real Classical role models. To suggest Ravel was neo-classical is to misunderstand both the term and Ravel's music. 'Le tombeau de Couperin' is an exception in Ravel's output and this one piece does not make him a neo-classicist.

Prokofiev was a daring, imaginative, mischievous composer. The twists and turns you describe were just a part of his unique musical language. he wasn't the only composer to write in this way, of course, but is perhaps the best known.

Why he did it? Prokofiev loved playing with traditional values of form and tonality and to thumb his nose at the establishment (whether overtly or more discreetly). You will often find that midway through a Prokofiev piece, the 'tonality' will veer off unexpectedly into a different direction or slide up or down a semitone, giving the music a harmonic 'jolt' for the listener. He admired the slightly older Stravinsky and was quite experimental in his 20s and early 30s. Even in the Classical Symphony, if you listen to the harmonies, Prokofiev's is playing sophisticated melodic and harmonic games the whole way through.

Answer 3

Prokofiev was perhaps the last great composer. His work managed to find a wonderful balance between the deconstructionist trends of the first part of the twentieth century and a more traditional concept of a beautiful aesthetic. It is these atonal and unconventional twists that show the real purpose of the emancipation of dissonance, whilst also contributing to the overall effect of the composition. He truly was a master of sparsely administering the piquant spice that is atonality to emphasize the structure of the music. Rather than too much "seasoning" which in that very same aesthetic would become unpalatable. (Please excuse the culinary metaphor - but it makes the point).

Answer 4

I agree with the 2nd answer. He was a neoclassical composer which meant the basis of his work is classic + contemporary new techniques. Hope this helps. Anyway, Prokofiev adjust his music to whatever he wanted it to. Take Peter and the Wolf for example. I love his style too.

Answer 5

Prokofiev's music was quasi-tonal and very free form. He didn't adhere to rules of major and minor, but took the melody and harmony wherever he felt it should go. His piano sonatas are the most complex and imaginative I have ever heard, and for me they are favorites. Prokofiev also wrote very lyrical music, such as "Capulets and Montagues", "Love for Three Oranges," the piano concertos and symphonies. The Russian pianist Evgeny Kissin recorded a masterful rendition of Piano Concerto #3, a work that stretches the tonal envelope, so to speak.

Answer 6

I agree with Mr. delicious, but i think it's worth adding all the Russian composers of that time were often creating art in response to the political climate of Russia at the time. I only mention this because a lot of the "surprises" are sometimes sonic versions of sticking your tongue out at the establishment. Here's a link to a web site that talks about this.

http://www.siue.edu/~aho/musov/sergei.html

ps check out the piece scythian suite

Answer 7

Music is all about tension and release. ALl of music theory is full of tradition and convention about how to do this.

The GREATEST composers are able to subtly set up musical expectations with colors of harmony then radically (and sometimes subtly) shift them to where your ear was not expecting them.

Prokofiev's use of multi-tonal centers, parallel major/minor tonality and the offset rhythm of many passages makes him a true master.

Most of all, he remembers the most basic rule for music - the one that supercedes all of the others - If it sounds good, it IS good.

Answer 8

an thrilling query, healthcare expert John. and because all solutions are subjective, i do no longer think of all of us right here would desire to concern stoning - or a minimum of thumbs down! I would desire to believe scrumptious guy - as much as i'm getting exhilaration from Brahms and Chopin, I easily have on no account been touched by ability of their song - it merely does not resonate with my soul. and that i 2nd his opinion on Palestrina - probable the only early composer i've got on no account have been given into - like Del, i'm valuable boring college counterpoint tutorials tarnished his magic rather for me. possibly "dislike" is merely too reliable a term for me right here - however the song of those composers merely does not - nicely, rock my socks. yet my best "problems" are with the song of Bruckner and Mahler - ok, i'm bracing myself for some stones - yet howdy, it somewhat is all subjective, keep in mind! besides, i'm packed with admiration and admire for his or her song, yet attempt as i'd, I merely can not comprehend nor get exhilaration from it - in spite of years of taking part of their works in symphony orchestras. i do no longer know why i think this way. Why do any human beings experience like this approximately particular composers? possibly in my case, it became right into a subconscious rebelliousness against the "modern-day orchestral scene" - a sort of anti-employer difficulty, in case you like. after all, i became into an Early song head desperately attempting to make a residing playing modern-day bassoon in an orchestra - and are not getting me incorrect, i'm no longer resistant to the charms of all post-18th century song - I found out to love Stravinsky, R. Strauss, Shostakovich, even Hindemith! yet i think of the sight of an excellent form of those grown musicians swooning and asserting "oh daaaahling, isn't Mahler merely maaaaaahvellous?" would have nicely performed some irreparable harm. Hmmm. possibly that explains why i've got long gone extra for imprecise weirdos like Guillaume Dufay, Gesualdo and Zelenka - through fact none of those drooling orchestral heavies had even heard of them, no longer to show comprehend them... Cheers, Hafwen x

Answer 9

Why do bananas have humps?

Wotan