# Prokofiev's 4th Symphony



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

I keep reading about two different versions of Prokofiev's Symphony No. 4, with two different opus numbers. Are the differences between the two versions really substantial? Or is it just changes in instrumentation? I have the revised version as part of a complete boxset (London P/SO/Weller), but is it worth me getting a recording of the first version?


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

The differences are substantial.

I would definitely say "yes." I have come to prefer the earlier version. I hardly ever play the revised version any more, though it was the only one I knew at first.

I wouldn't be without either, though. More Prokofiev is better than less Prokofiev.

[And the answer to your next question is "All of the recordings of the original version are fine."]

And while you're at it, why not pick up a recording of _L'enfant Prodigue _while you're at it? (You needn't get both the ballet and the suite, though. I mean, come on. There are limits.

Jurowski and Rozhdestvensky are both superb.)


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

At present, I prefer the revised, but I like both I have the Neeme Jarvi boxset with the Scottish National.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

_Some guy_ already hit the big point: Yes, there are substantial differences.

I believe the outer movements are changes, while the inner two remained the same. Particularly, the finale is vastly different. And if you are familiar with one version, you will definitely pick up on the differences in the other on first listen.

I wonder how seriously Prokofiev took the revision, though. Not in the sense that the revisions were shoddy or minimal -- they are not. Rather, I wonder where his true motivations lie in revising that work. The first version is classic early Prokofiev, opting for brevity and minimalism (in dramatics), neoclassicism if you will, over the modern style, with strong dynamics and _heroics_, found in much of his later works. The revised version then appears to cater to an audience that did not take well to his first version. And within the revised version, you see much of the bombastic, dramatic elements that drew many to his Fifth, and even suggests a hint of political/social strains, given Stalin's "social realism" doctrine at the time.

Some may disagree with that characterization, but I can only surmise his reason to modify the original to such great extent.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I have both versions: Rostropovich/ON France for both. I think I somewhat prefer the revised version, but it is the one I know better (it also has the more appealing cover  ). There are many themes and passages in common to both. One will sound familiar after having heard the other, so it takes committed and renewed listening to truly appreciate the differences (I have not yet reached this level, as I only got them both in 2013). If I recall correctly, the revised is a fair bit longer. I think it is nice to have them both, as the comparison of early and late approaches to the same material by a favourite composer is fascinating. Also, they have separate opus numbers and are considered to be different symphonies: it is only the numbering that introduces confusion.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

Avey said:


> I believe the outer movements are changes, while the inner two remained the same. Particularly, the finale is vastly different. And if you are familiar with one version, you will definitely pick up on the differences in the other on first listen.


The inner two are quite different as well. The second movement is twice as long as the first version, though that is mostly because things stated once in the first version get repeated in the second. And the third movement has a lot of new music inserted. But definitely the last movement is the most radically different. It's no longer in sonata-allegro form, for one, but is now a bunch of loosely related chunks. Oh, it's fun!!

I said in my earlier post that I play the opus 47 much more often than I play the opus 112, but I forgot to mention that I play the ballet which precedes them the most often of all.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> At present, I prefer the revised, but I like both I have the Neeme Jarvi boxset with the Scottish National.


That's the set I have; like a true fence-sitter I prefer the one I'm listening to. But it's fun to compare side by side.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ Here's your chance to make up your mind!


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

It'll be an interesting thread if Prokofiev's 4th ever makes the "Saturday Symphony" list


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

I have both versions, too, although I came to know--and love--the piece via the revised version, which remains my preference. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim the revised 4th is one of the great, under-appreciated masterpieces of the 20th century symphonic literature. The first two movements, in my opinion, are among Prokofiev's greatest achievements. I've long suspected that the neglect of the 4th is due at least in part because Prokofiev adapted music from his ballet _The Prodigal Son_ for many of it's themes...a practice to which, prior to the 5th and 6th symphonies, Prokofiev was prone, and for which he received criticism.

My favorite recording of the revised 4th, BTW, is with Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's never been released commercially as far as I know and I wore out my Odyssey LP. Then I discovered a CD of the performance available through Haydn House.


----------

