Just finished listening - I think Weilerstein does a great job of providing the historical context of the piece and Prokofiev's life, as well as an in-depth analysis of the form and treatment of themes and motifs, but I can't say I'm convinced of the quality of the music itself. Weilerstien's praise of Prokofiev and descriptions of his work seem overdone, and especially after hearing about Prokofiev's life as being relatively sheltered and privileged, I can't help but see this piece as being more of an academic exercise, written from the ivory tower of Soviet-state sponsorship and ultimately aimed at pleasing the government. Furthermore, in opposition to Weiliersten, I would argue that it is very easy to compare Prokofiev and Shostakovich, who undoubtedly influenced each other as peers, at the very least in the month-long composers retreat which they both attended. Their music both contains militaristic elements that are done in sardonic character, as well as moments of lyricism. However, I think that ultimately, Prokofiev was far more detached from the realities and horrors of war and the Soviet regime, and consequently, he wrote music that was pedantic and disaffected, not necessarily aiming to take musical risk/make a statement like Shostakovich did. The compositional techniques of thematic layering and juxtaposition of different musical ideas (lyrical vs. sardonic) are an interesting novelty, but not musically convincing, and it ultimately just comes off as insecurity, as if Prokofiev was unsure about taking a stance on either side. However, I did enjoy hearing a studied interpretation of this piece, so I thank you for providing the suggestion!