Pages that should be combined

[steltz]

Zintl: clarinet and violin sonata
On the violin sonata page, Mr.Zintl says it is the violin version of the clarinet sonata.

Prokofiev:
Op.94b violin sonata is an arrangement of the op.94 flute sonata. The arrangement is only in the solo part; the keyboard part is the same for both.

Could one of the moderators please combine these pages, after which I'll tag them. Thanks.

[KGill]

Zintl: Done.
Prokofiev: I believe these pages are kept separate because the arranged version is much more often performed and recognized than the original version. So unless there's an opposing consensus, I think I'll keep them as two pages.
(Actually, I'm not sure Mr. Zintl didn't intend his pages to be kept separate for the same reason? Don't know...)

[steltz]

I would agree with the Prokofiev if it weren't for the fact that the flute version is the original. I know the violin version is more frequent in recordings, but at the university where I teach, we have far more performances from the flute department -- almost every year at least one person wants to do this work.

The way Davydov's new tagging system works, both will come up on the lists. The only other thing to worry about is the title as it appears on the composer page. Would it be possible to do "Sonata, op.94 for flute (violin)"? That would seem to solve all problems.

[KGill]

Not only am I not sure people would look for it under 'S', but he actually numbered it 2. Therefore, it would seem that he considered it to be a violin sonata on his own, rather than just an arrangement (even if it is one).
I'm kind of reluctant to make this change; can we hear others' opinions?

[Davydov]

As a general rule, if the arrangement was issued with a different title and/or opus number then the tendency has been to treat it as a separate work, deserving its own page. But it's a good idea to add cross-references between the pages, i.e. "For the arrangement for violin and piano, see..." and "For the original version for flute and piano, see..".

[Melodia]

That's a weird piece -- Prokofiev quite often made revisions of a piece with a new Op. # (Sinfonietta, Symphony #4) and yet, in this case, both the flute and violin versions have the same Op. #. Make of it what you will.

[steltz]

I went to the library to see if I could find something that would help decide.

Grove lists the two together on the same line, i.e. [op.94] Sonata, D, fl, pf, 1943; arr. as op.94bis for vn, pf, 1944.

And from Harlow Robinson's 1987 biography of Prokofiev. From p.427, and his life in Moscow during 1944:

'But most of the time went to more "private" compositions. One was the rearrangement of the Flute Sonata for violin and piano which David Oistrakh had been encouraging him to undertake. The composer proceeded in his usual organized fashion, impressing Oistrakh. "Everything happened very quickly," Oistrakh said later. "As Sergei Sergeevich suggested, I provided two or three variants for each place in the Sonata that required editing. Then I numbered them and gave them to him to look over. With a pencil, he marked what he found suitable and made a few corrections. that is how -- with a minimum of discussion -- the violin version of the Sonata was completed." The number of changes made in the flute part were "minimal," mostly for bowing. No changes were made in the piano accompaniment.
Oistrakh introduced the Sonata for Violin and Piano No.2 (Op.94-bis) to the world in Moscow on June 17 , 1944, accompanied by Lev Oborin. (In fact this was Prokofiev's first completed violin-piano sonata, but the name Sonata no.1 for Violin and Piano had already been given to the still-unfinished Op.80).'

It appears that the no.2 designation was only to distinguish it from the other violin sonata. I have checked a book of Prokofiev's letters, and he makes no mention of the violin version. On the other hand, I'm not sure how complete this book was.

Any other opinions?