Also, it should be noted that the polytonal freedom of his melodies and harmonic modulations, the brilliant orchestrations, the adroitness for evading the heaviness of figured bass, the skill in florid counterpoint were not lost in his mature output, even in the spectacular historical dramas of the stage and cinema, where a large, dramatic canvas of sound was required. That Prokofieff's harmonies and forms sometimes seem professionally routine to our ears, may or may not indicate that he was less of an ``original'' than we prefer to believe. Need for novelty may be a symptom of cultural fatigue and instability.

Prokofieff might well emerge as a cultural hero, who, by the force of his creative life, helped preserve the main stream of tradition, to which the surviving idioms of current experimentalism may be eventually added and integrated.

At this date, it seems probable that the name of Serge Prokofieff will appear in the archives of History, as an effective Traditionalist, who was fully aware of the lure and danger of experimentation, and used it as it served his purpose; yet was never caught up in it -- never a slave to its academic dialectics. Certainly, it is the traditional clarity of his music which has endeared him to the Western World -- not his experimentations.

So Prokofieff was able to cultivate his musical talents and harvest a rich reward from them. Nor can anyone be certain that Prokofieff would have done better, or even as well, under different circumstances. His fellow countryman, Igor Stravinsky, certainly did not. Why did Prokofieff expand in stature and fecundity, while Stravinsky (who leaped into fame like a young giant) dwindled in stature and fruitfulness? I think the answer is to be found in Prokofieff's own words: ``the clarity must be new, not old.'' When Prokofieff forged his new clarity of ``lucid, straightforward music, so difficult to compose,'' he shaped his talents to his purpose.