In 1989, American pianist Barbara Nissman performed the complete Prokofiev piano sonatas at a series of recitals in New York and London. Surprisingly, this was the first time this feat had been accomplished. Her recordings of the complete sonatas made the year before were also released in 1989 -- marking the first complete cycle put to compact disc.

In 2002, Nissman's piano sonata set will be re-released on the Pierian label. This marks the first of several Prokofiev-centered activities by Nissman. In this exclusive interview, Nissman tells Prokofiev.org about the book she is writing on Prokofiev, her plans to record the complete Piano Concertos, and her thoughts on the composer and his music.

Prokofiev.org: You were the first to record all of Prokofiev's piano sonatas on CD in 1989. The good news is that this hard-to-find series will be reissued soon in a 3-CD set by Pierian Records. You're also writing a book about Prokofiev set for publication in 2003. Tell us about the book. What is it's title and what will it be about?

Barbara Nissman: I am delighted that the three volumes of the complete Prokofiev Sonatas and other major works which I recorded for Newport Classics in 1989 are being reissued by Pierian Records, a label devoted to historic releases. They should be available at amazon.com within the next few weeks. The Newport recordings represented the first set of this repertoire to be made available on CD.

The title of the book I am writing about Prokofiev is Prokofiev & the Piano: A Performer's View. This follows my book about Bartók, Bartók & the Piano: A Performer's View which will be published along with a CD insert by Scarecrow Press in September 2002. Hopefully the Prokofiev book will be ready in time for his anniversary year in 2003. I think the real reason I wanted to write a book about one of my favorite composers was to clarify the many misperceptions that have surrounded Prokofiev -- musically, politically, personally. I have concentrated on the major works Prokofiev has written for the piano; nine piano sonatas as well as a tenth sonata fragment; five piano concertos, plus other solo works including Visions Fugitives, Five Sarcasms, Four Etudes, the Op. 4 piano pieces, and his Toccata.

With musical examples provided mainly from this literature, I have tried to extract universal qualities from his music to aid in understanding Prokofiev's unique language and personal pianism. His vast repertoire needs to be understood in terms of the pianism from which it was conceived. Prokofiev's complexity is born from a dazzling virtuosity. However, strip away all the pianistic layers and the music can be reduced to simple melodic lines, tonal harmonies and a strong formal structural mold. The book is written not only for pianists, teachers but also for the serious music listener who wants to increase his musical understanding of one of the greatest piano composers of the 20th century. In no way does it function as an academic textbook. It is a book written by a performer, sharing her love for this composer and his music.

It is also very exciting to learn that you will be recording Prokofiev's piano concertos this year. With whom will you be recording the concertos and when can we expect to be able to see the discs in record stores?

I am quite excited about recording Prokofiev's five Piano Concertos -- they reflect the many faces of Prokofiev's personality and encompass different periods in his composing career, starting with the "bad boy" of the keyboard in the youthful one-movement First Concerto, proceeding to his grand Romantic declamation in the Second Concerto and then the Third Concerto shows us the "classical" Prokofiev as well as the melodic virtuoso -- this is everyone's favorite concerto and in a way the "perfect" concerto; the Fourth Concerto reveals the "prankster" showing off what he can do with only one hand at the keyboard and the Fifth Concerto, written with Stravinsky's shadow peering over his shoulder, presents the trapeze artist, always doing his acrobatics without a net!

We will be recording them this August in the Ukraine with the Prokofiev Orchestra, conducted by Theodore Kuchar. These should be available by 2003

As an aside, which among the concertos do you like the most?

Most people would choose No. 3; the "modernists" might choose No. 5 but I think most pianists would agree with my choice of No. 2 -- what a journey -- musically, technically, physically, emotionally. Prokofiev allows us to see much more of his heart exposed in this work than in any of the others. I am presently working on No. 5 which was supposedly Richter's favorite -- I am still trying to understand why. No. 2 is always my first choice for performance.

This doesn't surprise me. One of the interesting results having maintained the Prokofiev.org site for several years now and talked to dozens of pianists and Prokofiev fans around the world is that like you, the Prokofievophiles choose the Second as their favorite. This is not say the others are lesser works. It's just that something about the Second with its epic scale and fiendishly difficult cadenza that draws us in. The Third is more accessible to the non-Prokofiev listeners, but those familiar with his music are drawn to the Second. Prokofiev himself had completed the Second Concerto before he graduated from the St. Petersburg Conservatory, but decided to play the First for the Rubinstein Award competition his last year because he thought his professors might not understand the Second. Why do you think the Second Concerto has begun to eclipse the Third in popularity, and why do you think it took so long?

I think Prokofiev was quite clever in his choice of the 1st Piano Concerto instead of No. 2 for the competition of the Rubinstein Prize. He needed to make a splash, to "knock their socks off" which he truly accomplished. The monumental aspect of the four-movement No. 2 would not have worked with the judges. Also I think that Prokofiev realized that pianistically, he could deliver a much better performance of No. 1 than No.2. What is interesting to note is that this first version of the Second Concerto, written while still a conservatory student was later destroyed in a fire. From his memory, Prokofiev then tried to reconstruct the Concerto and according to reports by his contemporaries, changed it quite a bit-especially the orchestration; he made it a much more accessible work -- the critics of the day support that fact.

The popularity of the Third Concerto with the general public (and also that of the "Classical" Symphony) is easy to understand but I do believe that with this concerto Prokofiev did create the "perfect" form. It is extremely well crafted and only Prokofiev could have written such beautiful melodies. I would say that the increased popularity of No. 2 might have been helped along by the recording industry with their emphasis on complete concerto cycles. However, as an orchestral soloist, I find that most symphonies today would rather program No. 3 -- it's shorter, the audience won't object and perhaps they think their listeners might have seen that film, The Competition so the public will feel comfortable with its beautiful melodies.

I would say that even today No. 2 is not generally accessible -- it is a monster to tame for most pianists. There are several letters that Prokofiev has written about performing this work -- I even copied one down to tape in my score -- Prokofiev admits that he is nervous and doesn't want people to say that he plays his own works badly. Any pianist who reads that note before going on stage to perform this work has to smile and say -- even Prokofiev thought it was difficult! But how gratifying it is to perform this work! After you've played the cadenza, you feel like you've just climbed Mt. Everest but you still have three more movements to play!

What other activities do you have planned for the 50th anniversay celebrations (of Prokofiev's death) planned for 2003?

I am planning to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Prokofiev's death with performances of all his concertos throughout the US, Europe and the Far East and also New Zealand -- these concerts will also include lecture recitals about the sonatas aimed at furthering a deeper understanding of the man and his music. I am trying to coordinate all of my activities with the Prokofiev Archives, based at Goldsmiths College in London -- we have many things in the planning stages right now but I promise to keep you posted on all of our activities for 2003.

The other composer with whom you are most closely associated is Bartók. You've mentioned you're writing a book about him and are in the midst of recording all of his piano works. Bartók was 10 years older than Prokofiev so they overlapped for much of their lives. For certain they were aware of each other's music, but I am unaware if they ever met. Did they ever cross paths? Is there any indication of what Prokofiev thought of Bartók's music or vice-versa?

It has been interesting for me to compare Bartók to Prokofiev. I believe the following analogy sums up their differences and seems to be valid: Bartók was to Beethoven as Prokofiev was to Liszt. To the best of my knowledge, there were no letters exchanged between them to indicate that they ever met personally. Bartók speaks about the premiere of his First Violin Sonata in 1922 in Paris and claims "everyone" was there: Stravinsky, Poulenc, Milhaud, Ravel but no mention of Prokofiev. Perhaps Prokofiev was away on tour in America at that time.

With Bartók, I feel as if I am always trying to peel away his many layers. Prokofiev strikes me as much more direct -- in your face, so to speak and once the complex technical problems have been mastered, reveals a simplicity of soul and a love of life that is quite wonderful.

I'm curious about the Liszt comparison. One of the common criticisms of Prokofiev's piano music is that like Liszt's piano music, it is excessively virtuosic. The depth of the music is called into question. You said the source of the complexity in Prokofiev's works is his "dazzling virtuosity." Do you ever think he went too far? How do you respond to the critics who say the virtuosity detracts from deeper meaning in his music?

Often, I find myself having to defend Prokofiev and Liszt's virtuosic pianism and of course would certainly disagree with the statement that "virtuosity detracts from the deeper meaning of the music." With these two composers, virtuosity is born from the instrument and their passion for the piano -- they both wrote "pianistic" music -- of course occasionally this virtuosity does appeal to that bragadoccio quality that both men possessed. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Prokofiev as Poulenc nicknamed him was "the Russian Liszt." We are not talking about empty virtuosity or sheer acrobatics; we are talking about virtuosity serving the music -- virtuosity as an intrinsic component of both these composer's musical language. It is not a gloss or a varnish that is applied after -- it is born within the music -- not a separate component. It is this pianism, built upon the foundations of Liszt's grand romantic virtuoso style, that enables Prokofiev to exploit the full color and dynamic possibilities of his favored instrument and to create a wide emotional palette. Like Liszt, Prokofiev revels in pianism -- his passion and natural affinity for the instrument is apparent in most of his compositions (except for some works written during his Parisian years.) I remember reading a book published in Russia where the author nicknamed Prokofiev the "football" composer. Perhaps it is the performer's responsibility to change this attitude and not make his music sound like "sport"-only technique. The pianist must convince the listener that Prokofiev's pianism is born from his musical style -- it is an essential part of his unique vocabulary. Only when his pianism is mastered, will the performer arrive at Prokofiev's traditional roots and experience his profound simplicity of soul.

In addition to being an advocate of Prokofiev's works, you are a scholar about his life and music. You've taught master classes about Prokofiev's piano music at the Moscow and St. Petersburg Conservatories. What is the main message you try to convey when teaching a master class on Prokofiev's piano music?

I think that very often Prokofiev's remarkable lyricism plays second fiddle to his complex virtuosity. I also think that frequently, we forget just how funny he can be with his straight-faced wit. Recently, I gave a master class on the Seventh Sonata -- the young college student played an incredible finale -- really breathtaking -- quite dazzling but the student seemed to pay no attention to the first two movements -- perhaps he was bored with them but I find the first movement to be the most complex and difficult of the three movements. In general, it is easier for most students to master his percussive toccata, motor rhythms but much harder for them to hear the "natural" Prokofiev. We forget that he is all about melody!

It was interesting for me to be able to compare the Moscow and St. Petersburg Conservatories -- of course, Prokofiev was a product of the St. Petersburg Conservatory and they are very proud of that. Moscow reminded me of Juilliard and St. Petersburg seemed much more relaxed; the atmosphere was much warmer, more welcoming but the students were not quite on the same performance level as in Moscow.

I understand you've studied many of the manuscripts of and about Prokofiev at the Central State Archives in Moscow. How much material is there and how much of it has left to be analyzed? What are some of the findings of your research that are not widely known?

My initial reason for wanting to study the manuscripts of Prokofiev was the thought that perhaps I might stumble across an undiscovered treasure. However, much of the manuscripts are in disarray. That is what prompted Oleg Prokofiev to start the Prokofiev Archives, now housed at Goldmiths College in London. He was hoping to create a central place for much of his father's material. I believe that it was practically impossible to house the Archives in Moscow. I remember at one of my recitals devoted to the complete sonatas, I had programmed the tenth sonata fragment but only had in my possession a copy of the first page of the manuscript. The Russians had promised to send over the second page -- by the evening of my concert, I realized that this second page would not be forthcoming but to my surprise, I received a call at 7:00 PM from Schirmer, informing me that they had just received a fax of this second page, which I sightread at the concert that evening. What a lovely surprise. Also that second page altered my conception of where Prokofiev was headed with the 10th sonata. They also sent me some photostat copies of his manuscript of the 5th Sonata -- showing how he wrote it (using four staves to decide what changes needed to be made in the second version.)

Do you think there are any lost Prokofiev manuscripts or recordings that might still be about? I myself am surprised at the paucity of recordings by the composer. He played or conducted several works for broadcast on Soviet radio. To your knowledge were they ever recorded?

As for recordings, I do not believe we have much more that his performance of the Third Concerto as well as some of his solo performances on Welte Mignon piano rolls. His son Oleg gave me an LP recording which was issued on the Ember label and I later realized that this was the same recording that Everest had issued on their label. It certainly is a pity that we cannot hear him play his Second Concerto -- he always complained about having to practice that difficult cadenza. That pleased me -- even composers have to practice their own difficult music!!