Sergei Prokofiev, a white male Russian composer, who fit the demographic for many composers of the time, made notable contributions to French music in the early 20th century. Although Prokofiev was a Russian composer, his music was received well through the establishment of Sergei Diaghilev’s Ballet Russes.
An example of Prokofiev providing insight on how to compose for a French audience can be found in a letter from Prokofiev to composer Nikolai Miaskovsky, written on January 3, 1924. In his letter, Prokofiev describes a reading session of Miaskovsky’s 5th Symphony (on the piano, with Prokofiev and Alexander Borovsky as the pianists) set for conductor Serge Koussevitsky. In the letter, Prokofiev informs Miaskovsky of both Koussevitsky’s reactions to the symphony, as well as his own.
In the letter, Prokofiev attempts to persuade Miaskovsky to embrace his own style when composing and not rely on the past conventions of composer Alexander Glazunov. Prokofiev illustrates his view by comparing Miaskovsky’s situation to that of a swamp:
“I don’t doubt that Aleksandrov, Feinberg, and the other…[composers] are marvelous lads, but these Medtner-like fragments hang on you like stones and pull you invisibly into a warm, cozy swamp. For those who live in the swamp, the swamp is paradise; but you, an unspoiled person, let out an involuntary scream upon submersion: ‘Save me, there is no solid ground underfoot!’ And where in a swamp is there solid ground! Only at the bottom1.”
After the iteration of the swamp analogy, Prokofiev assures Miaskovsky that he only shares such feedback due to his great love for the composer, and does so to cushion any sort of defensive reactions that Miaskovsky may be experiencing due to the striking nature of the analogy.
Prokofiev’s letter also provides valuable insight into differences between the values of his day and those of the present. For instance, towards the end of the letter, when Prokofiev says, “When will I finish orchestrating all of this—only Allah knows1,” he is not speaking as a devout Muslim, as he is a member of the Christian Science creed. Rather, Prokofiev uses this reference to Islam as an idiom. In this instance, Prokofiev’s dismissive tone with regards to Allah and Islam reflects a difference in the values of Prokofiev’s time when compared to our culture today, as in the present day, respectable people would not use such a demeaning expression.
Finally, Prokofiev’s letter provides much evidence that his views on composition align with other sentiments at the time to depart from what was considered to be “conventional” composition. Similar to how Prokofiev discourages Miaskovsky from imitating Alexander Glazunov so directly, Debussy makes a very similar argument in his 1913 letter to La revue musicale S.I.M. on how music should not “…stifle all feeling beneath a mass of superimposed designs and motives: how can we hope to preserve our finesse, our spirit, if we insist on being so preoccupied with so many details of composition2?” Debussy, like Prokofiev, believes that music can be robbed of its creative nature and value if it is intentionally done the way that it has always been done.
Although fairly short, Prokofiev’s letter to Nikolai Miaskovsky on January 3rd, 1924 provides great insight into the compositional and cultural values that shaped Prokofiev’s music in the 1920s.
1 Prokofiev, Sergei. Sergei Prokofiev to Nikolai Miaskovsky, January 3, 1924, in Selected Letters of Sergei Prokofiev, edited and translated by Harlow Robinson, Northeastern University Press, 1998.
2 Debussy, Claude. Claude Debussy to La revue musicale S.I.M., 1913. In Source Readings in Music History. Vol. 7, The Twentieth Century, edited by Oliver Strunk et al., New York: W.W. Norton, 1998.