Prokofiev"s
SONATA FOR FLUTE AND P,ANO IN
D MAJOR OPUS 94:
from Manuscript to Performing Editions -
an Entangled Evolution
The following article ls an adaptation of the presentation
made ot the Nationol Flute Association Convention on
August 15,2002, in Washington, D. C.
INTRODUCTION
Each of us has mad e a cho ice abo ut wh ich
editio n of Prokofiev's Sona ta for Flute and
Piano in D Major Opus 94 to use for perfor-
mance and fo r teaching. M y own library
contains seven ed itions, and the most popu -
larly available editions among them reflect
the impact of the 1944 violin transcript ion
worked out by Prokofiev in collabo ratio n
with D avid O isrrakh . N o urtext ed ition of
the original flure and piano sonata has been
publi shed . J think it fair to say th at few of
this readership have had the chance to view
the Ilure manu script o r to hear the sonata as
Proko fiev in itially conceived it for flute and
p ian o.
In the late 1980, I was fortun ate to have
met N ina Kogan, th e daught er of famed
Russian violinist Leonid Kogan, who was in
this coumry with her 'cellisr husband , in resi-
dency for a year at Connecticut C ollege.
THE rurnsr QUARTERLY fZ>
D uring the cou rse of char year. I arranged a
recital for their talented teenage daughter,
Victoria, who was preparin g for a prestigious
piano compe tition in Moscow. Th e family
was grateful for my efforts o n their daugh-
rer's behalf, and , when retu rning to Moscow,
rhey expressed an interest in doin g some-
thing for me. r asked Nina wheth er she
might be able to obt ain a photocopy of the
manuscript of Prokofiev's Ilure and piano
sonara for me to stu dy. Several years went by,
and I forgot abou r my requesr. In Decem ber
of 1993 a plain brown envelope from Russia
appeared in my mailbox. Enclosed was the
req uested photocopy! I was amazed!
HISTORY O F THE SONATA
Fo r the Soviet Bureau o f Informatio n,
Prokofiev wrot e in J 94 4, "I had lon g
FALL200 3
by Patricia Harper
wished to write music for cite flute, an
instr ument which I felt had been unde-
servedly neglected. I wante d to write a
sona ta in delica te, fluid classical style. " I
Prokofiev for mally began com posing
such a sonata o n Sep tembe r 8, J 942. o n a
co m m ission from the Co mm ieree on Artis-
ric Affairs of th e USSR,' altho ugh, acco rd-
ing to his earliest biogr aph er, Israel
Nesryev, "the main themes of the wo rk had
been sketched out before the war." 3 At th at
time Pro kofiev was living in Alma -Are, the
capital city of th e C entral Asian State of
Kazakhs tan an d wo rking there with Eisen-
stein o n th e film sco re fo r Ivan th e Terri-
ble. N esryev, whose first edition o f 1946
was prepared with Prokofi ev's assistance ,
wro te, "T he idea of com posi ng a trans pa r-
ent , gra ceful piece for th e flu te had int er-
ested Prokofiev years befo re in France,
where (h e art of woodw ind playing is
h igh ly cultivated. H e (Proko fiev) spoke
with respect of the ' heavenly sou nd' of one
of the best Fren ch fluti sts, Barr ere.. . . Th e
character of th e sonata's princ ipal images. .
suited th e tran sparent to ne co lor o f th e
flut e splend idly." One other Russian biog-
rapher also specifically ment ions the Bar-
rere inspiration. Writing in SergeiProkofiev--
A Soviet Tragedy, in 1% 8, Victo r Seroff
wrote, " Ever sinc e his years in Paris, wh ere
he was fascin ated by th e art istry of th e
Frenc h woodw ind players, he had want ed
to write som eth ing for th e flut e. He had
never forgo tten th e ' heavenly so und ' of th e
instrument when pl ayed by Geor ges Bar-
rere, the famo us flut ist. Prok ofiev th ough t
that a sonata for flure and pian o wo uld
offer him the oppor ru n iry to d isplay nor
o nly lyri cal day-dr eamin g melod ies, but
also th e light and humo ro us sides to wh ich
thi s instru ment lends itself so well."! Since
Barrere was already in New York C ity
when Prokofi ev spent time in Paris in the
late 1920 s, I asked Bar rere scho lar, N ancy
Toff, whether she could verify a friend ship
between Barr ere and Proko fiev. She has
found a February 1922 referen ce to a co n-
cerr at Del moni co's Restaur ant in New
York given by the Mu sicians' C lub on
wh ich "Prokofieff played upon th e piano
in Sch ube rt ian style, (and) Barrere blew
up on the flut e in classical vein . .. "6 It
wo uld seem th at , at th e least , Barrere and
Prokofi ev were aware of each ot her's tal-
ents . N o furt her m entio n of th e Berrere
I
Moderato
~ t"
.1=80
A
~ mf
.J = 80
Moderato
A ~
p
EX A M PLES 2a a nd 2b ( O bse rve th e note mi st ak e s in th e seco nd th em e .)
co n nection is to be found in the recen tly-
tran slated collection of selected Pro kofiev
letters."
H ow iro n ic th at th e musical examp le
cited by Prokofiev's first biograph er,
Nes ryev, following h is detailed description
of Opus 94 is taken, nor from the flute and
piano or iginal, bu t from th e tran scribed
violin and p iano version." (Examp le 1).
Likewise, th e more recent Prokofiev biogra-
ph y, that by Michel D origne of 1994,' and
a wo rk con sidered to be of th e highest
scho larly quality (and onl y available in
Fren ch), also cites themes one and two of
th e first movem ent from the violin version
rat her th an from the original flute on e.
(Example 2a an d 2b).
T he sonata was com pleted a year later
o n Sep tember 12, 194 3, in Mo loto v. Flu tist
N icolai Kharkovsky and pianist Sviatoslav
Richte r prem iered the work on D ecem ber
7, 194 3, in the Beetho ven H all of th e Bol-
sho i Th eater in Moscow. Accordi ng to
Rich ter, this was not a pub lic concert but
rat her an aud itio n organ ized by the State
Prize Co mm ittee, and it failed to win an
award.t ?
However, when David Oi strakh heard
th e sonata men , he felt mat it wou ld "sound
very well on th e violin."!' Proko fiev wrote
in 1944, ''As regards the sonata for flute,
some of ou r violin ists have taken an interest
in it, and not long ago, together with D avid
O iscrakh , o ne of OUI best violinists, 1 made a
~
1"9' r - -- r-,... ~
C;;;T Sf WiS I['
EXA MP LE I
FF rtf
- Ely
--If'
fAll2003
violin version OUt of it. T h is pro ved nor too
difficult , since we found mat th e part of the
flute is easily adaptable to violin techn ique.
Very few changes were required. most of
them affecting bowin g. Th e piano part
remained unchanged." 12 (I would have to
say th at this is a bit of an und erstatement ,
especially when one examines th e changes to
the fourth movemen t of the sonara.) No tice
that Prokofiev did not go on to say that the
changes made in making the violin tran-
scription would m ake a bett er flute sona ta
and should therefore be ado pted by flute
players! Later in 1954 Oi srrakh was to write,
"As Sergei...suggested, 1 provided rwc or
thr ee variants for each place in th e Sonata
tha t needed editing. T he n I numb ered th em
and gave them to h im to look over. W ith a
pencil, he marked what he found suitable
and made a few correctio ns. Th at is how-
with a minimu m of discussion-the violin
version of th e sonata was completed. "13 O is-
trakh and pian ist Lev O berin prem iered the
violin/ piano version on Jun e 17 , 1944, in
Moscow, o nly six mo nth s after its birth as a
flute and piano work.
Five months later, following that pre-
miere in Mo scow, at Prokofiev's requ est, the
violin manu script was flown to Leeds M usic
and given to violin ist Joseph Szigeti.t- wh o
premiered th e sonata in Bosto n, M assach u-
setts, on Novem ber 26, 1944. In The Boston
Daily Globe the following morning, this
review, writ ten by Cyrus Durgin. ap peared :
II
II
II
THE fLUTISTQUARTERlY
"Violinist Joseph Szigeti gave the first
American per fo rmance of Sergei Prokofiev's
new Sonata in D Major in Jordan H all yes-
rerday afternoon. Th e conce rt was in the
Celebrity Series of Aaron Richmond and
drew a large audie nce.
The sonara, written in 1943~44 and
played from manuscript, is a solid exam-
ple of Prokofiev's latest style. The fou r
movements are Moderate, Scherzo,
Andante, and Allegro con brio. Melodically
they present little that is unforgettable
save for the main theme of the last move-
rnent, which threatens to become the
March from Peter andthe Wolf
Yet the workmanship is clever, the struc-
turesound, and the writing makes the
most of piano and violin in combination.
T he sonata will probably take a fewhear-
ings beforeit becomes easily familiar and
yields up all it has to offer. Nevertheless, I
suspect chat the famous Russian composer
has added another work [0 the active
reperrcr y.
Thus. Prokofiev's Sonatafor Flute and Piano
in D Major Opus 94 had its rwo pu blic
world premieres-one in Mo scow. the oth er
in Boston - as a so nata for violin and piano.
By the time a pub lished Hute version
became available for pur chase, the so und of
the sonata as a violin work was well estab-
lished in listeners' ears.
CHRONOLOGY OF EARLIEST
PERFORMING EDITIONS
Two years after its premieres in Moscow
and in Boston , the State Music Publishers
in Moscow pr int ed Sonatafor Violinand
PianoNo, 2 Opus 94 bis in 1946, At the
bott om of the first page of that printed
piano score, the following not e ap pears:
"T his sonata being originally compose d for
flute and piano, the part of violin is edi ted
in collaboratio n with David Oi strakh. "IGA
separate flute part was no t published until
two years later. By that tim e it was a popu-
lar work in violinists' co ncert reperto ry in
Eu rope. In New York , Leeds Music Cor po-
ration pub lished the sonata in 1946 as
TH E I'l.UTIST QUARTERLY
Sonatafor Flute or Violin and Piano.st T he
violin part sta tes that it has been "ed ited
with special an notatio ns by Joseph
Szigeti."18 In a Note on the inside of the
cover in the tiniest pri nt, the Pub lisher
states: "T he Sonata, Op us 94, was origi-
nally written for flute and piano and th e
composer himself made the violin and
piano version so successfully performed by
D avid Oi strakh and Joseph Szigeti."!9A
separate printed flute part states "Flute Part
edi ted with special ann ota tions by Ca rleton
Sprague Smith."2 0 Smith claimed that he
has "adopted some of the changes made in
the violin version (phrasing as well as not a-
tion) and suggested a few of his own. Foot -
notes in the flute parr refer to the first
sett ing."?' T hus, it was Carleton Sprag ue
Smith's version of Prokofiev's sonata for
flute and piano that first reached perform ers
and teachers in the U nited States.
APPROACH/METHOD OF MY STUDY
Finally in possession of a pho tocopy of the
flute/p iano manuscript. I have been able to
develop my own urtext flute part on the
compute r. To look at how the transform a-
tion s began to occur from original flute
manuscript to violin transcription , and to
pu blished flute ed itions, I set up a com-
pu ter file as a five-part, melod y-line score.
(Remem ber that Prokofiev him self stated
that "the piano part was un changed.") O n
the top line is the urtext flute part taken
from the manuscript ph otocopy which
bears a stamp from the Glinka State Centra l
M useum.
EXAMP LE 1
T he second stave is of the 1946 State Music
Publishers Prokofiev/Oi strakh violin part. (I
have written to the State Ce ntral Mu seum
and more recentl y [Matc h 2003J to the
Serge Prokofiev Arch ive in London and the
Rossiiskii Gos uda rsrvennyi Arkh iv in
Moscow, to obtain a photoco py of the man-
FALL2003
uscripr of the Prokofiev/Oi srrakh collabo ra-
tion. Perm ission has been granted.) The
thi rd stave is the 1946 Leeds Szigeti an no-
tated violin pa rt, the four th stave is the
1948 Carleton Sprague Smith annota ted
flute part ; and the botto m stave is the
Int ern ation al Ramp al ed ition flute parr
published in 1958," five years afrer
Prokofiev's death. In that same year, Inter-
nat ion al simultaneo usly pu blished an O is-
rrakh performin g ed ition for violin and
piano.t!
SUMMARY OF TRANSCRIPTION
FROM FLUTE TO VIOLIN VERSIONS
H aving a prin tout of the five version s
stacked up vertically is the ideal fo rmat for
viewing the sonara's transfor mations.
(Examp les 4 and 5),
As originally enti tled, the four move-
ments are as follows: I. Moderato; II . Scherzo
marked Presto; 111. Andantes. and IV. Allegro
con brio. In the flute manu script only two
of the four movements. the first and the
thi rd, bear metron om e markin gs. T he first
movement bears the markin g of 80 for the
quarter note, and the third bears the mark-
ing of 69 for the qua rter not e.
In several im port ant ways the melody
line was transformed when adapted for vio-
lin. Th ere are differences in the cho ice of
pitches and in octave placement . For exam-
ple, in the th ird movement , the movement
with th e least amount of chang e, in both
medsures 69 and 72 , pitch d ifferences
app ear in the melo dy line, possib ly to make
the conto ur mo re legato in th e str ing ver-
sio n. (Exam ple 6). Octave transpositio ns
are mor e frequent (and generally acknow l-
edged in the subsequent flut e ed itio ns),
such as shown here in measur es 15- 19 of
the first movement (Exam ple 7) and in
measur es 7 -14 of the second movement
(Example 8),
Both Smith and Ramp al seemed to
have jum ped at every op po rtu nity to place
the flute part ever higher!
Matte rs of art iculation are subtle and
generally not acknowledged in the flute ed i-
tion s. Th e original flute line is writte n in
 EXAM PLE ..

ff >

I'l
I'l

>
ff
I'l
I'l

>
ff
>

If

>

>
EX AM PLE 5

expansive and in longer, more legato phrases
in the lyrical sections than are to be found
in the O istrakh transcription. Examples
from the beginning and the ending of the
third movement make this comp arison
obvious. (Examples 9a and 9b, 10). Exam-
ple 10 from the first movement is yet
another exam ple of the longer, more expan-
sive slurred phrases of the flute original.
T he constant shifts from pizz: [Q area
in the fourth movement cannot. of course,
be executed on the flute.
In other matters of articulation , the use
of double and triple StopS in the fourth
movement is beyond the realm of possibil-
ity for flutists (with the possible exception
of Robert Dick). The effect of the enhanced
sound is to heighten the drama, excitement,
and inten sity of the final qu arter (52 mea-
sures) of the last movement to a degree
which changes the character of rhe move-
ment ent irely. (Example 11). With the
exception of a few figures. such as in the
first theme of the first movement (Example
12). rhyth ms remain consistent from the
flute to the violin version. On e sho uld note
that Prokofiev went back to the use of the
sixteent h not e figure in the violin transcrip-
tion for the stretto texture of me
develop-
ment section.

FAll. 2003 THE FLlTl15T QUARTERLY

A",I.",,

~
~, o o:7e O .-r--
. ~
- ~
~ .

-,=:;:: oJ
-
7 .
- , J. .. ,
- - ' -'-.

.. . ,~ ~O o'i\ O' , --:-e-----

. .~ _ .~

0'
~

, ~
~ ~

----- , ~I_ J

rt:. ~o .'i\ o" ,. ~

, . ~ "--
, ~ ~ "=='='
~ ~ ~

"if JJI_-J

~ 1 '----
~ I' '''., .00""-
.~
---- - oj
~

"""""'
Jdi_ ,
~

~ - -
.~ ou:-;-eo.-r:----
~ "=='='
----
_.~ of"
--" ~ . :-

" " '"

EXA M PLE 6

- ~~ = , FF'!="

CHeee.
'= - - r-, /-1uo -~ '.
, --------

rO-
~ ~

...
-r--,
/'
.~

'0'
~"'
~

"i,
~~
~

. ~ ~
'" rO ~FFR
-~ ~
,
/im~
~
~
:r., e e ;"
- ~
'"
.--,.
'-"
. fd ____ oTo ~
~ ~
>~

~Hee . n ~FA=l
f
~

, ~
'" '-"
- -
EXAMP LE 7

Presto

c:-. a: s> C\ c: " . I~ I. ~ I" " .

IV p

." C\ 'C::; " r>

C\ c: " A ~ . I~ I. ~ ~ ... '" I" I" p,n .
Iv p
spialo -== mf

~ c: " 0 .
a-. c: " r-; . 1.-1. "' I", '". H e""
v p spiu:alO

. C\ c: .'1 C\ c: " . I~ I. e IL , e",e

p

C\ c: C\ c: r-; IL ,
p
" . 1.- 1' "'
- - = = = "!I
1""'1"

EXAMPLE 8
 Allljall lC . . ...

.... ....
" "'1' '-J

V ~ ~ ~ ~

--- -------- ~ - ~ -~
,,;p-- -
~~
~ p '-J

, V r-, a-::: r-. .,-------. ~ ~ .--c--- -~

" ,,;p-- '-J

"'1''----
I ---- - ~ -> ~. ::::-- .~

'-J
-~

, ---- - >: ~. .= -: - .
"'1'---- :=- ~ = = - p '-J
Andant e
,-itc nu ,o
~

c:> <:
I" ~
--== m ===- P

r---
rr l ~nu lO
_-_ ..._....-
. .......__....._. ...... _
...... ....

" ~ <: ~
~

':.of
==-- p

ril.
r---

" ~ ~ <: I ~
~

mf ===- p

dt

.
ro-

~ .> <:
" mf ===- P
dl . _....._.... ........- ..... ....--- _- . ........... -_.
...
ro-

oj
<: ;;' ~
mf -------- ~ p

EXAMPLE S 9a and 9b

T he Szigeti edition differs, in general, only
in irs choices of fingerings and positions
suggested to the would-be violin performer.
Ho wever, it is more sparsely-annotated for
dynam ic changes than the O istrakh tran-
script ion. In the final movement Szigeti
provides alternat ives co some of the more
technical gestures indicated in the original
violin tran scription.
SUMMARY OF CARLETON SPRAGUE than to allow the player to reflect a fuller
SMITH AND RAMPAL EDITIONS palerre of timbral cont rasts. T hese octave
transpositions were, in general, acknowl-
It would appear that both Smith and Ram- edged in the flute editions. Ho wever, artic-
pal actu ally saw the original flute version. ulation and dy namic changes weren't. T his
However, both were temp ted to adapt is mor e true in Ram pal's ed ition th an in
many of the violin gestu res, particularly in Smith's where, for example, in several
the area of octave transpositions in a seem- places in the fou rth movement , Ram pal
ing desire to bright en the sonata rath er directs the flutist co play marcato as in mea-

FAll 2003 THE fWTI ST QUARTERLY

 EXAMPLE 10

~,. r:: > > -> > q~ e- e- ,

I" >
~ s
,
f
~,. G e- e-
I" L.--J }~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ",
>
>
,
r: ,.~ >
~
\~ e- e-
_--
"
I V L.-----'
~,. L ~
>
} ..
>
~
>
.>." > \~ e- e-
"
I V > >
~ / r:: , s
A
~,.
L <: > > ~ e- e-
" V ,.. ~

f
EX A MPL E I I

Moderato J:: 80

mf

mf

mf
EXAMPLE 12

THE f LUTISTQUARTERLY fD FAll 2003

 sures 17, 29, and 66 and to play appassion-
ato in measure 107. Neith er the ori ginal
manuscr ipt nor th e violin tran scription
provides such di rectives. Likewise, the
Rampal edition includ es altered phrasing
such as of the characteristic group of six
sixteent hs in to two groups of thr ee in the
fourth movem ent , while Prokofie v want ed
th e figur e ph rased as on e legato group of
six sixteenth s (Example 13).
Anomer exam ple of phrase changing
occur s in measures 2, 6, and 7 of the first
movement. Rampa l adopts the O istrakh
version and does nor acknowledge what is
original an d wh at has been tr an scribed.
(Example 14).
Moderato J=B.O
mf
mf
mf
CALL FOR URTEXT EDITION
ONE WHICH MORE ACCURATELY
REFLECTS PROKOFIEV'S ORIGINAL
INTENTIONS FOR A FLUTE AND
PIANO SONATA
A number of years ago I attended a master-
class at which me sonata was performed. I
recall vividly that the eminent flutist leading
the class suggested that we all might benefit by
listening to violin performances of the sonata.
BUT, isn't this the wrong way round?Do we
need to become violin ists?T his work is first a
flute and piano sonata, and one of our best.
Prokofiev wrote it because he thought me
flute was"undeservedly-neglecred" in the liter-
EXAMPLE 13
EXAMPLE 14
FAU 2003
atur e. In fact, it is th e on ly sonat a for a wind
or a brass instrument that he was to compose.
If any thing, this so nata was a French -
inspired work. According to his two sons,
Prokofiev was known to have listened regu-
larly to an old 78 recording of Debussy's Pre-
lude a/'apres midi d 'un ft une." Wh at could
have been more evocativeof distinctive
French flute color and gescure than the possi-
bilities offered up by Debussy? Recalling the
expertise of the French wind players, and, in
particular, the "heavenly sound" of French
flutist, Georges Bar rere, Prokofiev wrote a
lyrical, cransparent, and classicalsonata.
Moreover,Richter, who premiered the
work in Moscow, and, who, over me course of
fi THE Fl lIT IST Q UARTERLY
 -
.
"

.-
EX AM PL E 15

ff >

>

,.,

ff

>

EXAMPLES 16a and 16b

nit FLUTIST QUARTElU.Y C> FALL 2003

his professional career performed the sonata
fifteen nmeso as a wo rk for flure and piano ,
wrote, "Now all violinists have it in their
reperrory and it has become known as his Sec-
ond Violin Sonara, even though the original
versio n for flute is inco mparably bener."26
In 194 8 Carleton Sprague Sm ith
wrote, "In Prague, du ring the 1947 M usic
Festival, 1 had an oppor run iry to d iscuss th e
twO settings with Di mi tri Shosrakovich.
T he latte r in slow but clear Engli sh stated
tha t he con sidered th e flute version better
su ited to th e mu sic th an th e violin arran ge-
m ent. Degustibus non est disputandum."2 7
H ow strange to me that Sm ith would pro -
vide us with this com me nt and yet use
so me of the changes made in the violin ver-
sio n as well as a few of his own, in th e sec-
ond pri nti ng of th e Leeds ed ition (I 948 )!
A nd, finally, in a 1954 moving trib ut e
to Prokofi ev ent itled "Prokofiev as J Knew
H im," th e great Ru ssian 'cellist, Ros-
tropovich . writing about Prokofi ev's o rches-
trati on s had thi s to say:
He always SHove for "transparency" in his
orchestration and employed only the
absolute min imum ofinsrrur uents....In
scoring he attached part icular importa nce
ro change in timbres depe nd ing on the reg-
ister. T hat explains why he often used very
low or very high not es for the trum pets,
oboes, and clarinets thus causing much
gru mbling on the part of the musicians
since these notes are very difficult to play.
But Sergei...was a severe taskmaster when it
came to performance. " I daresay it is not
easy to play that note, b UI it can be played
if you cry hard enough," he would say.28
The
Flute Snokel
The ..- flute cleaner
It's fan. easy. and effcctiYC
Do you WMt IIlONInfOl'l'Nltlon?
l!Wl!.scmdpiDCNIlttrprlses.cqm
We fluti sts, too , are surely being ad mon-
ished to b rave the figur es in the low regis-
te rs such as th ose in the first movement
(Exam ple 15) and to play them in th e regis-
ter as Proko fiev wished . After all, th ere are
places in our h ighest register which allow us
to shine and to sparkle with brilliance later
o n (Example I 6a an d 16b)!
CONCLUSIONS
Man y of the currently available and pop u-
larly used publi shed editions of the flute
sonata stemmed. from th e transformations of
the flute manu script to the Oistrakhviolin
adap tation. Our collective fam iliarity and
recognition of the sonara is so bo un d up
with this blend of original and transfor ma-
tion mat most of us are actually unfamiliar
with Prokofiev's desired int entions of a flm e
line of "delicate, classical style." T h is is most
unfortun ate because those violin tra nsforma-
tion s tend to make the sonata more brillianr
and more virtuos ic than Proko fiev had co n-
ceived of it, in tru th , a very different sonata.
He was a brilliant orchestrator, know ing
which colors and which kind s of art ic u la tio n
and which registers most app ropriately suited
th e expression he imagi ned for the flute. For
all of th e compelling reason s I have cited
abo ve, and by now kno wing what Prokofiev's
or iginal intent ions were. we can finally begin
to rethin k th e overall con ception of this
importan t work in our repertoire.
Patricia Harper 2003
NOTES
I. Prokofiev, Sergei, Auwbiography. Articles. RnniniJ-
W/(J, trans. Rose Prckofieva, Foreign Languages
PublishingHotJ5(', Moscow. USSR,n. d., p. 131.
2. Prok ofiev, Sergei, Sdr eltd Lenere of Srrgri
Prokofirv, translated, edi ted and with an intro-
duc tion by Harlow Robinson. Northeastern
University Prt:SS, Boston. 1998. p. 327. (Spe-
cificdare of composition raken from mi. score.)
3. Nesryev, Israel v., Prokofirv(first published in
Russia in 1957), rranslared from Russian by
Florence Jonas, Stanford University Prt:SS, Stan-
ford, CA, 1960, p. 344. (O riginal edition of
1946 was translated by Rose Prokofieva and
published by Alfred A. Knopf in New York.)
4. ibid., p. 345.
5. Sercff Victor , Sergei Prokofi ev; A Sovi er
Tragedy. Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1968,
p. 259.
FALL2003
6. Ecmail from TofT, July 26, 2000, citing "Must-
cal Courier,"v. 84, February 16, 1922.
7. Setece d Lesurs of Sergri PrtJkofirv, rranslared,
edi ted and with an intr oduction by Harlow
Robinson, op. cit.
8. Nesryev, op.cit., p. 346.
9 Do rig ne, M ichel , Srrgr PrlJkojirlJ. Fayard ,
Prance. 1994. (See pp. 590-592 for a compara-
uve discussion of the two sonara versions.)
10. Mcnsaingecn, Bruno, SlIiarosltJlJ Rieht" Note-
book! and Comenations. (1998). rranslared by
Stew art Spe ncer, Princeton Unive rsity Press.
Princeton, 200 1. p. 83.
11. Oisrrakh in A ut obiography. Ar rick. Reminis-
emus, op.cit., p 241.
12. ibid. p. 131.
13. O isrrakh in Robinson, Harlow. Sngri Prokofi rv.
Viking, New York. 1987, p. 427.
14. Prokof ieff Serge, Opus 94, So1Ullllfor Flurr and
Piano or Violin and Piano, edited with special
an notations by Joseph Sz igeci, Leeds Music
Corporation, NewYork, 1946. Preface.
15. Cyrus Durgi n in The Boston Daily G/obe,
November 27, 1944.
16. Prokofieff Serge, Suond Sonata/or F/uu and
Piano, Opu s 946is, Stare Music Publishers.
Moscow. 1946.
17. Prokofieff, Sergei, Sonata fo r Huu or Violin and
Piano, Opus 94 bis, edited by Joseph Saigen,
Leeds Music Corporation, New York, 1946.
18. ibid. Violin Part.
19. ibid. Introductory Remarks.
20. ibid. Flute Part. (J948 printing)
21. Prokofieff. Serge, Sonara Opus 94. edited with
special anno rario ns by Carleron Sprague Smith,
Leeds Music Corporation, 1948, (originally
published in 1946), New York.
22. Prokofiev, Sergei, Sonata in D Major, Opus 94 for
F/uu and Piano, edited by jean-Pier re Rarnpal,
International Music Company, New York, 1958.
23. Prokofieff, Sergei, Sonma in D Major Opus 94a
fo r Violin and Piano. edited by David Ois erakh ,
1neem anona l Music Com pany. New York.
1958.
24. Jaffe Da niel, Tuemietb-Cmrury Composers,
Sergrv ProkOfitv. Phaidon Press Limited, lon-
don, 1998, p. 175.
25. Monsaingeon, op. cit., p. 397.
26. ibid.. p. 83.
27. Preface to Smith/Leedsedition of 1948.
28. Rcsrropc vich, "Prokofiev as I Knew Him," in
Au robiography. A rrick s. Rtminisernus, Of . cir.,
p. 247.
Patricia Harper is professor offlute
at Connecticut College. She was
consulting editorfor the new Poulenc
Son at a edition, co-editor ofthe
Sidney Lani er C ollectio n, and
aurhorlnarrarorfor the CD, The
Remarkabl e Ca reer of Julius Baker,
Ms. Ha,rper offirs summer master-
classes in vermont and South Car-
olina. She is Secretary ofthe N FA .
b THE FLUTISTQUARTERLY