# Prokofiev's 5th Symphony - deliciously queasy strings?



## Guest (Dec 18, 2019)

Thanks to the member who directed me to the Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra website, I have just enjoyed their performance of this hugely entertaining work.

https://www.gso.se/en/gsoplay/video/symfoni-nr-5/

I was particularly impressed by the camera work which caught players smirking with delight, frowning with concentration, and the tuba, third movement, closing his eyes to stop them being blown out by the effort. The sound was not quite so good, as some of the soloists contributions seemed muffled.

I've not seen this conductor before, but he's obviously made quite an impact as he's only 34, but currently chief with the GSO and going to be the next principal for the Philharmonia.

My question is, can anyone explain what the composer is doing in the third movement, where the strings make me feel slightly queasy? When I first heard this symphony, I wondered whether I was mishearing or the orchestra (Rotterdam/Nezet-Seguin) misplaying, but having heard another four versions (including HvK who would surely have smoothed it out if he could - though he does his best) it's obviously deliberate.

The movement starts at 22:12, and the effect I'm talking about occurs more than once, but first at 22:52. It's not dissimilar to the cheesy effect some film composers use in horror movies. Mind you, when the strings move into their main melody at 23:20, it's only slightly less unsettling. Gorgeous, but unsettling.

Is it just me, or is Prokofiev doing something intentional?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I used to associate the third movement thus:

Cheerful, dreamy complacency followed by grim reality - Prokofiev recalling to himself that he would knock 'em dead when moving to the USSR in the mid-30s and then being jolted out of his reverie by discovering for himself the strictures that Soviet artists were under. Stalin Prize one minute, censure the next. Carrot and stick.

But I'm probably overthinking things as usual and wide of the mark anyway. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2019)

elgars ghost said:


> I used to associate the third movement thus:
> 
> Cheerful, dreamy complacency followed by grim reality - Prokofiev recalling to himself that he would knock 'em dead when moving to the USSR in the mid-30s and then being jolted out of his reverie by discovering for himself the strictures that Soviet artists were under. Stalin Prize one minute, censure the next. Carrot and stick.
> 
> But I'm probably overthinking things as usual and wide of the mark anyway. :lol:


I don't think so. It's full of contradictions, just as you describe.

Program notes for the SF Symphony include this quote:



> "I regard the Fifth Symphony as the culmination of a long period my creative life," he wrote shortly after its premiere. "I conceived of it as glorifying the grandeur of the human spirit . . . praising the free and happy man-his strength, his generosity, and the purity of his soul."


https://www.sfsymphony.org/Watch-Li.../Symphony-No-5-in-B-flat-major,-Opus-100.aspx

I'm not hearing that at all - unless he means to include melancholy and insanity as part of the make-up of a free and happy man!


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Prokofiev did not play a stringed nstrument and was not an idiomatic string writer. That said, he probably got the effect he wanted As I've said before, sections of that movement always call to mind Escher's hooded monks endlessly going up and down the same circular staircase.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Above is the string passage in question. Technically speaking, it's unsettling for several reasons. First, there are two time signatures in use, the predominant being 9/8. But in this passage all the strings except the second violins are in 3/4. The result is rhythmic tension of triple groupings against duple groupings. That I imagine is the most important queasy factor. Also unsettling is the "hollow" texture created by the more than two octaves of empty space between the violins and violas and the cello part. The first violins in the stratosphere doubled by the violas two octaves lower adds to the hollow effect. Finally, the progression is disturbing because it is outside of any key, moving from B minor to G minor (Prokofiev is dividing the octave symmetrically by minor chords a major third apart, which is inherently eerie.) And some of the nonharmonic tones, like the Eb on the second eighth note, don't fall into any stable key.

Speaking aesthetically, I'd say the whole movement is disturbing from the start and becomes terrifying at the climax. The opening ostinato pattern, whose bass line begins with the tense interval of an augmented 4th, is a threatening undercurrent that throughout undermines the lovely and lyrical melodic parts, including what you call the violin's "main melody at 23:20." It is like some inexorable force lurking below the surface that breaks loose and lays waste to everything at the climax. Remember that this is a war symphony. I'd be inclined to interpret it not as personal expression or individual experience, but as a canvas reflecting national concerns, a whole society being ripped apart. One should also note that the central part of the movement is all based, subtly at times, on themes from the first movement, playing out conflicting images that underlie the whole symphonic structure.

So, yes, it's all intentional, concealing great depths of subtlety and long-term planning


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Mvt III of Prokofieff Sym #5 features the strings [Vln I, esp] in very high positions for long stretches....the high range is penetrating, is tough to play, and often sounds strained, and even out of tune, even with professional groups...


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Remember that this is a war symphony. I'd be inclined to interpret it not as personal expression or individual experience, but as a canvas reflecting national concerns, a whole society being ripped apart. One should also note that the central part of the movement is all based, subtly at times, on themes from the first movement, playing out conflicting images that underlie the whole symphonic structure.


A war symphony, indeed.

In fact, it is featured on Vol.18 of the Northern Flowers series titled Wartime Music:









On page 10 of the liner notes (by Vadim Shakhov) is this comment:

 Sergey Prokofiev himself briefly described the cycle as follows, "The symphony's 1st movement is a sonata-like andante, of a somewhat dithyrambic nature; the 2nd movement is a scherzo; the 3rd movement is a lyrical adagio, with a gloomier middle and a very calm end; and the 4th movement is a finale classical in its appearance, sounding themes of a folk feast."
However, the author's concise and 'official' comment looks too modest against the music itself, and hardly suits the halo around the composition. Admiration of the symphony cannot probably be expressed better than it was done by Soviet piano genius Sviatoslav Richter, a sincerest admirer of Prokofiev's creativity, "A milestone came for us all … and for Prokofiev, too. The Fifth Symphony embodies his complete inner maturity and his look back. He looks back from a height on his life and everything he has had. There is something Olympic about it … In the Fifth Symphony he rises to the full height of his genius. Moreover, we see there Time and History, War, Patriotism, Victory... Victory in general and Prokofiev's victory. This was when he won finally. He had always won before, that's true, but this time he as artist won forever."

I couldn't have expressed it that well, but I know the feeling Richter describes; the Prokofiev Fifth remains my favorite work by this composer and ranks as one of my favorite symphonies. I still cherish my vinyl LP of the performance with Antal Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2019)

MarkW said:


> *Prokofiev did not play a stringed nstrument and was not an idiomatic string writer*. That said, he probably got the effect he wanted As I've said before, sections of that movement always call to mind Escher's hooded monks endlessly going up and down the same circular staircase.


That's an interesting idea. It hadn't occurred to me that a composer might find difficulty writing effectively for an instrument that he doesn't play, given that, I presume, most composers won't play the majority of instruments in a symphony orchestra. Are there other instances where this might be a weakness in a CM composition?



EdwardBast said:


> View attachment 127986
> 
> 
> Above is the string passage in question. Technically speaking, it's unsettling for several reasons. First, there are two time signatures in use, the predominant being 9/8. But in this passage all the strings except the second violins are in 3/4. The result is rhythmic tension of triple groupings against duple groupings. That I imagine is the most important queasy factor. Also unsettling is the "hollow" texture created by the more than two octaves of empty space between the violins and violas and the cello part. The first violins in the stratosphere doubled by the violas two octaves lower adds to the hollow effect. Finally, the progression is disturbing because it is outside of any key, moving from B minor to G minor (Prokofiev is dividing the octave symmetrically by minor chords a major third apart, which is inherently eerie.) And some of the nonharmonic tones, like the Eb on the second eighth note, don't fall into any stable key.
> ...


Thanks very much. I'm relieved that he meant it, and that I was getting it, even if I don't have the technical ability to explain it.

The odd thing is that while I had assumed it was "about" the war, or war, it has too much humour in it to wholly convince that that was the real subject matter. So, in the firm belief that this was deliberate, not a failure on his part, he's saying something else - and certainly not the pompous pontification cited in the SFS program notes - for which I can find no other source. It struck me as a more general reflection on what war 'says' about the human condition, which is more akin to Shakespeare's 'tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'

(With everything 'laid waste', as you put it, it's a sort of 'apocalypse...in 9/8'. Now, where have I heard that before...? )



Heck148 said:


> Mvt III of Prokofieff Sym #5 features the strings [Vln I, esp] in very high positions for long stretches....the high range is penetrating, is tough to play, and often sounds strained, and even out of tune, even with professional groups...


Yes, exactly, out of tune. Do the large intervals also make it a challenge, or is that what you meant by 'range'?



SONNET CLV said:


> A war symphony, indeed.


It occurs to me that SP heard DSCH's 7th Symphony - a much more obvious war symphony - and decided not to write anything like it. Then DSCH heard SP's 5th and decided to write something like it - coming up with his 9th, which has, to my ears, some of the same comic/sardonic elements.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> The odd thing is that while I had assumed it was "about" the war, or war, *it has too much humour in it to wholly convince that that was the real subject matter*. So, in the firm belief that this was deliberate, not a failure on his part, he's saying something else - and certainly not the pompous pontification cited in the SFS program notes - for which I can find no other source. It struck me as a more general reflection on what war 'says' about the human condition, which is more akin to Shakespeare's 'tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'


Leaving aside the question of whether "subject matter" is quite the right way to put it, one might say that the humor and headlong optimism of the scherzo and finale were entirely appropriate for a war symphony composed in Russia in the summer and fall of 1943. After the siege of Stalingrad was broken and Germany suffered the most devastating and decisive defeat of the war - the battle of Stalingrad wrapped up in February of 1943 - most everyone knew the tide had turned and Germany's downfall was inevitable. It was a doomed defensive war for Germany from then on. I imagine Prokofiev knew this and took it to heart. In trying to reconcile the music to history and the war, I've always heard the scherzo as a nod to the Western allies - or am I the only one who hears the influence of jazz in it?


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Thanks to the member who directed me to the Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra website, I have just enjoyed their performance of this hugely entertaining work.
> 
> https://www.gso.se/en/gsoplay/video/symfoni-nr-5/
> 
> ...


This section always reminds me of some the music from Romeo and Juliet - such as here around 2:40




 - texturally similar


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Yes, exactly, out of tune. Do the large intervals also make it a challenge, or is that what you meant by 'range'?.


Yes, the high range, upper positions, and the wide intervals make this difficult for the section.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Leaving aside the question of whether "subject matter" is quite the right way to put it, one might say that the humor and headlong optimism of the scherzo and finale were entirely appropriate for a war symphony composed in Russia in the summer and fall of 1943. After the siege of Stalingrad was broken and Germany suffered the most devastating and decisive defeat of the war - the battle of Stalingrad wrapped up in February of 1943 - most everyone knew the tide had turned and Germany's downfall was inevitable. It was a doomed defensive war for Germany from then on. I imagine Prokofiev knew this and took it to heart. In trying to reconcile the music to history and the war, I've always heard the scherzo as a nod to the Western allies - or am I the only one who hears the influence of jazz in it?


Yes, please leave aside the 'subject matter' issue. It's just a convenient shorthand for whatever we might all agree the symphony is "about" - it's no more questionable, surely, than your use of the term 'war symphony' (unless all you meant was that it was composed in wartime?)

As for jazz - yes, if you mean the 'swing' in the second part of the scherzo?



Op.123 said:


> This section always reminds me of some the music from Romeo and Juliet - such as here around 2:40
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Yes, please leave aside the 'subject matter' issue. It's just a convenient shorthand for whatever we might all agree the symphony is "about" - it's no more questionable, surely, than your use of the term 'war symphony' (unless all you meant was that it was composed in wartime?)
> 
> As for jazz - yes, if you mean the 'swing' in the second part of the scherzo?
> 
> Agreed.


Yes, the middle part of the middle especially, but the opening theme as well. Jazz along with a militaristic snare. Prokofiev had undoubtedly been exposed to much jazz during his time in the U.S. and France and the influence seems clear in some other works.

By war symphony I meant primarily one composed during the war, as the term is used for his "War Sonatas," 6 through 8. I was also implying something as to content.


----------

