Hungarian composer, Miklós Rózsa, is primarily known for his career as a film composer, but he wrote over forty-five pieces for the concert hall. The most famous of these works, Theme, Variations, and Finale, was composed in 1933 and premiered the following year, ushering in a long history of performances throughout Europe and abroad in the 1930s and 1940s. This document serves as a guide for performers of Theme, Variations, and Finale by offering biographical information about Rózsa, the compositional history and performance history of the work and recorded legacy, details about its two versions, and a detailed analysis of the score. This document also clarifies important details about the work's performance history, which have previously been recorded inaccurately.

Despite the growth of technology in music composition and performance, professional clarinetists maintain that air microphones are superior to piezoelectric pickups. Pickups offer increased mobility, isolation, and reduced feedback, but air microphones are used simply for the perceived sound quality. In this study a ported barrel pickup and a contact transducer pickup placed at various intervals on the clarinet were sampled and compared to a reference recording to determine how the sound differed for each method. In addition, the history of wind instrument pickups, the acoustics of the clarinet, and the basics of piezoelectricity were discussed to help examine the results. The pickups were examined in three ways: overall level in decibels, frequency cutoff, and overtone displacement. Through these results it was determined that the most accurate methods of clarinet pickup are the ported barrel pickup, contact transducers closer to the vibration of the reed such as the ligature or barrel surface, or a transducer placed at the end of the bell. These findings were consistent with the discussions regarding history, clarinet acoustics, and piezoelectricity. This study also produced a reference for the sounds associated with different pickup methods, as well as possible improvements for clarinet pickup design.

Clarinet multiphonics have become increasingly popular among composers since they were first introduced in the 1950s. However, it is a topic poorly understood by both performers and composers, which sometimes leads to the use of acoustically impossible multiphonics in compositions. Producing multiphonics requires precise manipulations of embouchure force, air pressure, and tongue position. These three factors are invisible to the naked eye during clarinet performance, leading to many conflicting theories about multiphonic production strategies, often based on subjective perception of the performer. This study attempts to observe the latter factor—tongue motion—during multiphonic production in situ using ultrasound. Additionally, a multiphonic catalog containing 604 dyad multiphonics was compiled as part of this study. The author hypothesized that nearly all, if not all, of the multiphonics can be produced using one of four primary production strategies. The four production strategies are: (A) lowering the back of the tongue while sustaining the upper note; (B) raising the back of the tongue while sustaining the upper note; (C) changing the tongue position to that of the lower note while sustaining the upper note; and (D) raising the root of the tongue (a sensation similar to constricting the throat) while sustaining the upper note. To distill production strategies into four primary categories, the author documented his perceived tongue motion over twenty repetitions of playing every multiphonic in the catalog. These perceptions were then confirmed or corrected through ultrasound investigation sessions after every five repetitions. The production strategies detailed in this study are only for finding the correct voicing to produce the multiphonics. The catalog compiled during this study is organized using two different organizational systems: the first uses the traditional method of organizing by pitch; the second uses a fingering-based system to facilitate the ease of finding multiphonics in question, since notated pitches of multiphonics often differ between sources.

It wasn’t long after the Chicago Opera Company postponed staging The Love for Three Oranges in December of 1919 that Prokofiev decided to create The Fiery Angel. In November of the same year he was reading Valery Bryusov’s novel, “The Fiery Angel.” At the same time he was establishing a closer relationship with his future wife, Lina Codina. For various reasons the composition of The Fiery Angel endured over many years. In April of 1920 at the Metropolitan Opera, none of his three operas - The Gambler, The Love for Three Oranges, and The Fiery Angel - were accepted for staging. He received no additional support from his colleagues Sergi Diaghilev, Igor Stravinsky, Vladimir Mayakovsky, and Pierre Souvchinsky, who did not care for the subject of Bryusov’s plot. Despite his unsuccessful attempts to have the work premiered, he continued working and moved from the U.S. to Europe, where he continued to compose, finishing the first edition of The Fiery Angel. He married Lina Codina in 1923. Several years later, while posing for portrait artist Anna Ostroumova-Lebedeva, the composer learned about the mysteries of a love triangle between Bryusov, Andrey Bely and Nina Petrovskaya. It was then that Prokofiev’s characters took shape, reflecting the conflicting relationships in Bryusov’s real life and characters from the novel, as well as themes from Prokofiev’s own life.

This paper will discuss Prokofiev’s third opera, The Fiery Angel. In addition to brief biographical, character, and plot information, topics will include issues Prokofiev encountered with creating the libretto, the relationship between his real-life love triangle and that depicted in the opera, and the impact Prokofiev’s ever-evolving relationship with religion and the occult had on the work.