Uploaded December 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Scottish National Orchestra conducted by Neeme Järvi.
I - Allegro ben articolato - Poco meno mosso - Meno mosso - Tempo primo - Poco meno mosso - Poco più mosso. Tempestoso - Poco meno mosso: 0:00
II - Theme and variations: Tema. Andante (11:47) - Variation I. L'istesso tempo (13:24) - Variation II. Allegro non troppo (15:21) - Variation III. Allegro (17:59) - Variation IV. Larghetto (20:00) - Variation V. Allegro con brio (23:52) - Variation VI. Allegro moderato (26:32) - Più mosso - Più mosso. Con precipitazione - Assai meno mosso - Tema. Andante molto, doppio movimento (31:05)
Prokofiev's Symphony No.2 was composed between 1924-5, written as a response to the prevailing modernist musical trends in Paris; style mécanique, unbridled dissonance and extreme complexity. The composer was no longer considered the daring avant-garde as in pre-war Europe, so he feared his music was becoming old-fashioned, but the symphony failed to achieve its purpose. It was premiered in Paris on June 6 of 1925, conducted by Serge Koussevitzky (to whom the score is dedicated) as part of his Paris series of concerts. The piece had an ambivalent reception, failing to gain the success the composer expected.
The symphony went on to be performed in the Soviet Union on June 6 of 1928 in Leningrad, and on 30 November 30 of 1934 in Moscow, conducted on both occasions by Alexander Gauk. In a letter to his friend Myaskovsky, Prokofiev admitted to not fully understanding the work himself, as well as having doubts about his ability as a composer for the first time in his life. The work, unlike the popular classical symphony, never secured a comfortable foothold in the orchestral repertoire, being only sporadically performed and recorded. In 1953, Prokofiev projected a substantial revision of the work, planning to transform the piece into a three-movement symphony. Unfortunately this came to nothing with his death on March 5 of that year.
Technology and machines, the idols of the new age, pressurized into music. Thus, the symphony is a typical child of its time: as far as content is concerned closely linked to the prevalent uncritical faith in machinery, radical progressive thinking, and almost naive enthusiasm for technology. Prokofiev may have been inspired or influenced by Honegger's Pacific 231, the orchestral work about the locomotive whose premiere Prokofiev attended on May 8 of 1924. Prokofiev characterized this symphony as a work of "iron and steel", formally modelled after Beethoven's Piano Sonata No.32. Much later on, contemporary composer Christopher Rouse called it "the best of all of them", and wrote his own Symphony No. 3 (2011) in homage to the piece.
The first movement is structured in sonata form. It begins with fierce trumpet fanfares, which leads to a forceful and violent first theme on full orchestra, constructed over several repeating rhythmic motives (ostinati). The music is characterized by the abundance not only of ostinati, but also textural thickness, polytonal dissonance and near-constant forward momentum. The music reaches a brief but intense climax, followed by a syncopated transition dominated by strings, piano and woods. Then a harsh and menacing second theme is introduced in form of a dissonant polytonal chorale, introduced by brass over wood ostinati figures, leading to an agitated and nightmarish second climax.
This musical onslaught to the ears is briefly stopped at the beginning of the development, with double basses and low brass with martial ostinati that are the root of the material. These are contrapuntally developed as more instruments are added, up to seven different voices as we reach a riotous and acid climax. The material is then vigorously recapitulated, growing into another nightmarish climax with the second theme. Both then are put in counterpoint in the opening of the frantic and dissonant coda, before ending with a sequence of baleful D minor brass chords, with no real sense of triumph or victory.
The second movement is written as a theme and variations. It opens with undulating strings, over which a melancholic and lyrical main theme is presented by the oboe. The first variation is in the same tempo and continues this subdued mood, with the outlines of the theme often obscured by the addition of ostinato figures on woodwind and strings. The second variation is more rhythmic and animated, with ricocheting gestures on woodwind and strings. The music build to a grotesque and dissonant climax, before returning to the previous section. The third variation is a scherzo whose aggressive exchanges between the sections of the orchestra frequently conceal the theme's steady unfolding in the depths.
[Musical analysis continued in the comments section]
Picture: "Two Heads" (1925) by the Russian artist Pavel Filonov.
Musical analysis partially written by myself. Sources: tinyurl.com/24edo8pb
To check the score: tinyurl.com/2xvky22b
Scottish National Orchestra conducted by Neeme Järvi.
I - Allegro ben articolato - Poco meno mosso - Meno mosso - Tempo primo - Poco meno mosso - Poco più mosso. Tempestoso - Poco meno mosso: 0:00
II - Theme and variations: Tema. Andante (11:47) - Variation I. L'istesso tempo (13:24) - Variation II. Allegro non troppo (15:21) - Variation III. Allegro (17:59) - Variation IV. Larghetto (20:00) - Variation V. Allegro con brio (23:52) - Variation VI. Allegro moderato (26:32) - Più mosso - Più mosso. Con precipitazione - Assai meno mosso - Tema. Andante molto, doppio movimento (31:05)
Prokofiev's Symphony No.2 was composed between 1924-5, written as a response to the prevailing modernist musical trends in Paris; style mécanique, unbridled dissonance and extreme complexity. The composer was no longer considered the daring avant-garde as in pre-war Europe, so he feared his music was becoming old-fashioned, but the symphony failed to achieve its purpose. It was premiered in Paris on June 6 of 1925, conducted by Serge Koussevitzky (to whom the score is dedicated) as part of his Paris series of concerts. The piece had an ambivalent reception, failing to gain the success the composer expected.
The symphony went on to be performed in the Soviet Union on June 6 of 1928 in Leningrad, and on 30 November 30 of 1934 in Moscow, conducted on both occasions by Alexander Gauk. In a letter to his friend Myaskovsky, Prokofiev admitted to not fully understanding the work himself, as well as having doubts about his ability as a composer for the first time in his life. The work, unlike the popular classical symphony, never secured a comfortable foothold in the orchestral repertoire, being only sporadically performed and recorded. In 1953, Prokofiev projected a substantial revision of the work, planning to transform the piece into a three-movement symphony. Unfortunately this came to nothing with his death on March 5 of that year.
Technology and machines, the idols of the new age, pressurized into music. Thus, the symphony is a typical child of its time: as far as content is concerned closely linked to the prevalent uncritical faith in machinery, radical progressive thinking, and almost naive enthusiasm for technology. Prokofiev may have been inspired or influenced by Honegger's Pacific 231, the orchestral work about the locomotive whose premiere Prokofiev attended on May 8 of 1924. Prokofiev characterized this symphony as a work of "iron and steel", formally modelled after Beethoven's Piano Sonata No.32. Much later on, contemporary composer Christopher Rouse called it "the best of all of them", and wrote his own Symphony No. 3 (2011) in homage to the piece.
The first movement is structured in sonata form. It begins with fierce trumpet fanfares, which leads to a forceful and violent first theme on full orchestra, constructed over several repeating rhythmic motives (ostinati). The music is characterized by the abundance not only of ostinati, but also textural thickness, polytonal dissonance and near-constant forward momentum. The music reaches a brief but intense climax, followed by a syncopated transition dominated by strings, piano and woods. Then a harsh and menacing second theme is introduced in form of a dissonant polytonal chorale, introduced by brass over wood ostinati figures, leading to an agitated and nightmarish second climax.
This musical onslaught to the ears is briefly stopped at the beginning of the development, with double basses and low brass with martial ostinati that are the root of the material. These are contrapuntally developed as more instruments are added, up to seven different voices as we reach a riotous and acid climax. The material is then vigorously recapitulated, growing into another nightmarish climax with the second theme. Both then are put in counterpoint in the opening of the frantic and dissonant coda, before ending with a sequence of baleful D minor brass chords, with no real sense of triumph or victory.
The second movement is written as a theme and variations. It opens with undulating strings, over which a melancholic and lyrical main theme is presented by the oboe. The first variation is in the same tempo and continues this subdued mood, with the outlines of the theme often obscured by the addition of ostinato figures on woodwind and strings. The second variation is more rhythmic and animated, with ricocheting gestures on woodwind and strings. The music build to a grotesque and dissonant climax, before returning to the previous section. The third variation is a scherzo whose aggressive exchanges between the sections of the orchestra frequently conceal the theme's steady unfolding in the depths.
[Musical analysis continued in the comments section]
Picture: "Two Heads" (1925) by the Russian artist Pavel Filonov.
Musical analysis partially written by myself. Sources: tinyurl.com/24edo8pb
To check the score: tinyurl.com/2xvky22b
