It is rather amazing to realize that you were the first pianist
to record and program Prokofiev's complete piano sonatas in 1989.
Since then almost a dozen other pianists have duplicated the
feat (Berman, Chiu, Marshev, McLachlan, Raekallio, Kasman,
Bronfman, Lill, and Glemser that I know of.) Why do you think it
took so long for Prokofiev's piano works to become accepted? To your
knowledge did any Russian pianists record all the sonatas at an earlier
date?
This point needs to be clarified: I was the first pianist to
record all the Prokofiev Piano Sonatas on CD. While I was a student
at the University of Michigan, my professor, Gyorgy Sandor was in the
process of recording all of the Piano Sonatas for Vox records. I do not
know if he was the first pianist to record all of them for LP. It was
always a surprise to me that Gilels or Richter had never recorded all
of them but I do know that there were some sonatas and concertos that
Richter chose not to play. What also surprised me was that noone had
performed all of the sonatas in recital before I presented them in concert
in 1989.
I would say that more pianists than ever before are studying Prokofiev's
works but still at most concerts, the public hears mainly the favorite
"warhorses."
Speaking of the piano sonatas, in the classical repertoire they are
a towering achievement. They span Prokofiev's entire life from Opus 1
to the fragment of the Tenth Sonata which he wrote in his last
days. In a recent poll we conducted on Prokofiev.org, preferences
among the sonatas was surprisingly varied. No one or two sonatas,
even the War Sonatas, dominated the poll. There were even
many votes for the First and Ninth as 'favorite.' Tell us how
you regard the Piano Sonatas and which you believe to represent
the height of his achievement in this form.
I believe that it is much easier for me to choose my least favorite
Prokofiev Piano Sonata than to choose my favorite among them -- whichever
one I am programming in concert that evening becomes my favorite. Certainly
the least successful of all the Sonatas is No. 5 -- Prokofiev himself knew
that -- that is why he attempted to revise it and the revision also does
not work -- given the choice between the earlier or later version, I would
choose the earlier because for me, it seems more honest. This was written
during the period when Prokofiev was trying to aspire to Stravinsky's
success with the Parisian public and the Fifth Sonata is his "good"
imitation of Stravinsky -- however his natural pianistic voice is not
heard in this work -- it seems artificially contrived.
For me the "War Sonatas" are his ultimate achievement, yet I also confess to loving
the early Rachmaninoff/Tchaikovsky first sonata. The classic Second
is such a leap from the youthful sectional one-movement first sonata,
and certainly the Third qualifies as the perfect study in one-movement
form. I adore the joy and exuberance of the fourth's finale and the
heavy Russian statement of its middle movement. The slow romantic
movements of the "War Sonatas" are particular favorites and confirm
my theory that Prokofiev was a continuation of the romantic pianism
of the 19th century and the opening of the Ninth is truly sublime.
To choose one is difficult -- they all attest to his pianism, his craftsmanship;
I am attracted to Prokofiev's sense of form and structure -- his sense
of architecture which accounts for why I have problems coming to terms
with Scriabin's late Sonatas -- with Scriabin's music, I feel more
comfortable within his smaller forms.
Prokofiev is one of these composers, at least for me, that challenges
all of me -- my pianism, my intelligence and truly feeds me emotionally.
As a performer, the "War Sonatas" represent the height of his achievement
within classical sonata form and within the 20th century, and perhaps
the Eighth Sonata would be my personal barometer for emotional growth.
This is a Sonata to which I will always return.
Regarding your own recordings of the Sonatas, your playing
reminds me of the best qualities of Prokofiev's playing --
dazzling virtuosity, remarkable clarity, and a strong attention
to the underlying melodic line. One aspect of your playing that
is different from almost all other performers of his sonatas is
that your tempi are more elastic. Most pianists avoid rubato
or deviating from the tempo markings at all when playing Prokofiev's
sonatas. Yet Prokofiev, in the only recording we have of him playing
one of his sonatas (the Andante to the Fourth from 1935,) takes
quite a few liberties with his own tempo markings. This, even though,
at least according to Poulenc, "rubato made his flesh creep."
What are your views on tempo when playing his sonatas?
I strongly believe that all music possesses its own natural rubato,
more or less, depending on the vocabulary of the composer. With Prokofiev,
there is a stereotype that exists about his music that focuses
too much on the percussive, hard, brittle edge that most people
associate with his piano-writing. Most pianists forget about his
wide range of sound and color and they fail to realize that there
is a tender heart, beating within. Even though Prokofiev makes the
pianists jump through all sorts of hoops to get to see it, it is there
-- also there is his wonderful sense of humor! For me, and this might
sound like a contradiction but it is not, Prokofiev is a continuation
of the grand, bravura romantic nineteenth century school of piano
playing and yet at the same time (similar to Picasso) he is the most
"modern" (in the best sense of the word) of all composers. I have no
trouble reconciling these two elements -- he uses the past as Picasso
did to create a "modern" and enduring language, uniquely his own.
Perhaps Poulenc't quote about "rubato making Prokofiev's flesh creep"
was more about schmatlz and sentimentality than about natural
elasticity.
Among Prokofiev's professors at the St. Petersburg Conservatory,
which do you think had the greatest influence on his music? On his
piano playing?
I think that (Nikolai) Tcherepnin was Prokofiev's true "mentor." Prokofiev was
one of these people who flourished with "benign neglect" -- he did
not need anyone to teach him how to compose. Tcherepnin functioned
as a good friend -- a kind, caring man who recognized the genius
talent of Prokofiev and tried to open up the ears and soul of this
young talent so he could appreciate and learn from other great composers.
In terms of his piano-playing, Alexander Winkler functioned more as a
"father-figure" for him. It was clear that Prokofiev and (Anna) Esipova did
not get along very well and I believe that Prokofiev realized he had
made a big mistake when he changed professors -- Esipova was the "superstar"
of the piano faculty. I believe that Winkler had the perception to see
what a great talent Prokofiev possessed; Esipova tried to make him a
pianist by using the same methods she used for all her students. She
was too rigid in her teaching for such a big talent as Prokofiev. It
is clear to me that Prokofiev always needed the freedom to go his own
way, even in his piano playing.
How do you evaluate Prokofiev as a pianist? As we've talked about,
we only have a small number of piano roll and HMV recordings, as well
as the written remarks of others, upon which to make an evaluation.
How would you compare him with other composer pianist of his
day such as Rachmaninoff?
Prokofiev was not a great pianist but he possessed an incredible
natural talent and facility for the instrument; Rachmaninoff was a great
pianist -- a much more polished pianist, as we can hear in his old
recordings -- a great artist at the piano especially when playing the
music of other composers. Prokofiev played his own music very well
but he knew that he was first and foremost a composer, not really a
performer on the level of Rachmaninoff and certainly not a conductor
according to his friends and his wife Lina. Whenever he had to practice
for his concert tours, Prokofiev would have preferred to have been composing.
However, Prokofiev was one of the great composers and even though I adore
Rachmaninoff's music, I would say that Prokofiev was the greater composer
of the two. He was a much better craftsman-a better architect and truly
unique -- he was able to use the past to build for the future to create
something new and in the process, created something uniquely his own --
noone ever wrote like Prokofiev.
You said that the main reason you're writing your book about
Prokofiev is to clear up the "many misperceptions" about Prokofiev,
"musically, politically, and personally." You've written that
Prokofiev has been much maligned as well. Without giving too
much of your book away, what do you think the biggest misperceptions
are about him?
I feel that it is very important to challenge the misperceptions
that exist about Prokofiev -- musically, politically, personally, and
pianistically. Perhaps the biggest problem we have with him musically
is that he does not fit into a neat category -- some people label
him a "modernist" -- others criticize him for being too "conservative."
Neither box truly fits.
Politically, I strongly believe that his decision to leave Paris and
return to Moscow has been generally misunderstood and this information
misused by both the East and the West. When you read Nestyev's biography
you get the Russian version of history and even here in the US his return
to Russia has been harshly judged and at times held against him.
I believe strongly that Prokofiev was "apolitical" -- his only concern
when he returned to Russia, was with his music and getting his works
performed -- of course the Soviet officials knew exactly how to woo
him back to Russia. However, I believe for Prokofiev it was the only
decision he could have made -- he was dying in Paris, and in danger of
losing his "natural" voice with all those compositional experiments,
trying to emulate Stravinsky's success with the Parisian public. If
he had not returned to Russia, would we have the "War Sonatas," Alexander
Nevsky, Lt. Kije, Romeo & Juliet, Peter & the Wolf. Cinderella, the Fifth
Symphony? Perhaps, perhaps not. I do not believe he could have written
these works while living in Paris.
Personally, Prokofiev has been much maligned. I feel that most of the
people he offended, and the list reads like a "Who's Who in Music," did
not understand his directness, his honesty, his complete lack of tact.
You see this in his music -- this directness, that sarcastic side to his
having fun.
A common question we get at Prokofiev.org is from neophyte
listeners who have heard maybe just Peter and the Wolf or
the Classical Symphony, and are anxious to listen to his
other works. Can you suggest a 'roadmap' of works to broaden a new
listener's Prokofiev horizons?
Perhaps an easier way to increase the enjoyment and understanding
of Prokofiev's music for neophyte listeners is to explore his piano
music. As you pointed out, the nine piano sonatas span his entire
life. The new listener can be guided to understand exactly what he
was doing -- where he was, which direction he was headed. They
could start at the very beginning with his First Sonata, Op. 1
We should remind everyone that you are not just a Prokofiev
specialist. You've recorded all of Alberto Ginastera's piano
works -- he in fact wrote a sonata for you. What other recordings
would you like to point out to those interested in your
artistry?
I do not consider myself a twentieth century pianist (as many
people assume) but a nineteeth-century pianist. If you were to hear
me play Liszt, I think you would better understand my approach to
Prokofiev.
The nineteenth century was the "golden age" of the keyboard --
Prokofiev just enlarges this tradition. People have branded me mainly
because of my association with Prokofiev's music and also with the
music of Ginastera. But the attraction has been for their pianism
and their respect, love and passion and craft for this instrument.
My association with Alberto Ginastera's music began while I was
still a student at the University of Michigan, just finishing up my
doctorate, and he came as a guest of their Contemporary festival --
I was performing his First Piano Concerto. He heard me play and
promised to write me a Concerto for Piano and Percussion, which
sadly because of his illness became the Third Sonata, a shorter
work and ultimately his final work. Of course, Ginastera's pianism
owes much to the music of Prokofiev and Bartok.
Next week I will be in the studio recording a Liszt CD. I recorded
the Sonata in B minor, the six Paganini Etudes, and the Rhapsodie
Espagnole over ten years ago and I find that my conception of the Sonata
has truly changed. Hopefully this recording will be out soon.
Lastly, over your distinguished career, you've collaborated
with many of the best conductors of the 20th century, masters
such as Eugene Ormandy and Riccardo Muti. Who among the American
conductors do you find have a special affinity for Prokofiev's
music? What other conductors do you prefer in Prokofiev's music?
Certainly, the conductor Leonard Slatkin with whom I have
collaborated on many occasions -- he understands Prokofiev's
excitement and dazzling color sense. Also I would be interested
in hearing Prokofiev's music performed by Robert Spano and David
Robertson, two American conductors with whom I have not yet
performed, but have heard wonderful comments about. As for the
Russians, Temirkanov and Gergiev are the two exciting Russians
I know in this repertoire.
