Readers' Commentary - 29 May 2009

The Accompanist or Collaborative Pianist? article from earlier in the week has generated some very well thought-out comments from various people. In case you haven't yet seen the Wholenote article by Colin Eatock that generated so much response from both myself and others, you can find it here.

Susan Eichhorn Young writes:

Pianists who indeed work in tandem with singers and instrumentalists are most DEFINITELY collaborative! They do not "just accompany" but rather, are part of the performance process - including coaching prior to that performance! "Accompany" to me indicates being without any kind of self-direction. Why must we have a hierarchy when it comes to creating art? Why can't it be collaborative in whatever way the artists choose together? I know many collaborative pianists who have saved the butts of many singers during a performance!! If that isn't collaborative, I don't know what is!

I disagree with Eatock. Gestures are not empty if they are there to make a change and acknowledge a definite artist with whom another artist is making a statement with. I always bow WITH my pianist. Any pianist collaborates on making a performance the best it can be. That in itself should be enough. The gesture to give a collaborative pianist an equal billing by using this term, allows for the recognition that what they do is IMPERATIVE to the outcome!

Claude sums up the situation with this short but definitive take on the subject:

Agree with Becky - "pianist" says enough. The moment that the pianist is referred to as an accompanist or collaborator is the moment that a hierarchy is created.

Here is part of an extensive comment by Michael Monroe:

And, as has been often said, even when collaborative pianists are playing sonata rep by Beethoven/Brahms where the musical role is unquestionably that of an equal, there is a sense in which we're often accompanying "someone else's" recital. Not always true, of course, but if Violinist A is making a Carnegie Hall debut, the pianist's social/cultural role is that of accompanist, regardless of what the musical role is. Samuel Sanders was a great man, but when he played recitals with Perlman, he was an accompanist in a useful sense of the term, no matter what he or Perlman might have said. The people bought tickets to hear Perlman. (I'm not saying I think that's a great thing, but I do think it's true.) Even Jeremy Denk playing for Joshua Bell still kind of fits that mold - though less so. There are always degrees.

However, your random Twitter search is unsettling. (To be fair, probably most random Twitter searches are unsettling.) I agree that "collaborative piano" makes more sense for degree programs than does accompanying and, at least for now, we pretty clearly need the two tracks of piano and ... something else. Frankly, it's a shame that 95% of career-seeking pianists aren't given more CP training, but that's a whole other story. Hey, we can start calling it CPR, Collaborative Piano Rulers? (OK, the r needs work.) "We've got a singer who needs a diction intervention. Stat!" "I'm on it - I've got a DMA in CPR!"

I do think the term is here to stay, mainly because it's being so widely adopted by degree programs. It might seem less odd to the next generation than it does to me. I also think the moniker works nicely as a title for your blog, by the way. Maybe it's that the extra syllable (blog) helps to balance out the mouthful that is the word "collaborative."

Thanks, Michael--I've never thought about the title of my blog in that way. (For more information about the reason I picked the title back in 2005, be sure to see my upcoming lecture at the Vancouver International Song Institute at 4pm on Saturday, June 13.)

James Douglass writes of the fine line that many of us walk in the profession:

I've been in many discussions regarding this issue - there are many tangential aspects. I'm interested in presenting a concise summation. "Collaborative" is a term intended to simplify the areas within which a pianist may work under one umbrella - as opposed to "pianist" for chamber and "accompanist" for vocal, choral, or other miscellany. A secondary concern/goal would be the respect issue.

On programs we should simply use the term "piano" in the same sense that our recital partners are referred to as soprano, violin, etc. They are not referred to by their field title or academic classification (voice performance, string performance, etc.).

We will rarely be seen in the same public light and focus as most of the partners with whom we work - it is simply part of the package of choosing to work in this challenging and very fulfilling field. The tricky balance is to create respect for us and the field through the quality of our work and demeanor while tactfully standing our ground artistically and professionally.

For more comments from well-known musicians (including Natalie Doucet-Lalkins and Bob Koenig) be sure to check out the original post.

Readers' Commentary - 4 May 2009

More noteworthy comments from the last few days...

The Career in Parentheses? posting continues to generate more thoughts. Lydia writes about the tension between roles of artist/collaborator and pianist for hire: 

I like the idea of viewing myself as a collaborator in an ensemble situation,instruments or voice. I believe in my importance to make the performance a success. However, usually, when they look for a pianist to work with them, for audition or concert, they are the ones paying the pianist which they call accompanist. Because of this payer and payee relationship, we are not on equal ground any more.

Many of them balked on my fee as well. I charge them my lesson fee. I get call from music students in a university near me. Many of them get staff pianists or their school friends to play for free, and only call me when neither option worked. Somehow, they can always find some other pianists that would do it for peanuts.

Often, the thought of only getting paid 1/4 of what I can charge as a piano teacher makes me drop the chance, unless I just want the experience.

I want to collaborate, but I find it hard when considering the payer-payee situation.

GradNovice's response:

I am in agreement with those comments with respect to fees, and charging them the same fee as lessons: it sets a standard and importance for both collaborative gigs and teaching gigs. I gauge both teaching and collaborations to be equal, because no matter what, at the end of the day, you are working with someone else to make music. That, and when peers and parents see you charge the same amount in both scenarios, I find they mentally eventually understand that musical collaborations are also a branch of a one's musical education, and not merely musical byproduct.

I do have a comment re: Lydia - "Somehow, they can always find some other pianists that would do it for peanuts".
Unfortunately, I am one of them, only because I am a novice in the market. I find myself working for friends whom I personally know are strapped financially. In some instances (like in smaller towns, say, Kingston), some teachers just exclusively commit their students to "questionable" accompanists (with whom they are BFFs), but who barely learn the music but still charge an arm and a leg. I have found myself needing to sacrifice even my musical esteem to find work. All in all, I am battling constantly with the insatiable need for experience, and also the worry of "overcharging", especially when the payer knows you're new to the scene, or competition (some good, some not...).

Alex Thio's comment on Creating First Experiences in Collaboration:

Jennifer's article on "Teaching Your Piano Students How to Accompany" is indeed insightful and practical. It's a wonder how so many of us (including yours truly) possess the enviable skills as collaborative pianists, but don't (or dare not) impart said skills to our piano students. Well, this certainly has to change - and it starts with me!

You go Alex! Bring the knowledge to the next generation.

Lizpr adds:

I think any pianist serious about collaborative work, especially with singers, should be *required* to take voice lessons. Back at UBC, as a piano student, boy, did my phrasing change when I switched to voice. When I accompanied singers, I paid way more attention to their need to, well, breathe! I also learned when a singer is hanging on to a high note, that's not the time to dilly-dally on the keys - and an "artistic accelerando" was a good idea! LOL

(Past life disclosure: Liz and I both took Class Voice at UBC 20 years ago.)

Thanks for the comments everyone--your opinions bring a wealth and diversity of viewpoint to the blog. Keep them coming!

Readers' Commentary - 28 April 2009

Some of the most interesting writing on the blog these days is coming from readers' comments. Here are some recent examples:

Sarah comments on 5 Ways to Add Length to your Practice Session:

Amen! I actually just had "the talk" with my main voice teacher, telling me I needed to take more time to dissect each phrase. I've added an extra 45-60 min to my practice- going from 1 1/2 hours to 2+. I warm up in the mornings from 9-10, and also work on technical exercises. From 2-3 before I teach I work on phrases. I force myself to go through every phrase and every vowel! Ah!! Very tedious, but I know I'm done when the doorbell rings :) When I'm through with my day of teaching, usually around 7:30, I go through my pieces in bigger chunks. It's great because I am completely warmed up and so satisfying to finally sing through something and release some emotion. I've also started looking at music beyond opera and running some musical theater rep. Definitely keeps my acting in check and is such fun! Thanks for this amazing post on practicing- if you have more tips for professionals, they are welcome!!

Yesterday's A Career in Parentheses? is also generating some excellent commentary. Jennifer Peterson (aka @gaspsiagore) writes:

Those of us who do this for a living can truly sense our value as collaborators. We are fulfilled by our contribution in a way those who are driven to be the soloist or the *star* may never experience.

Speaking for myself, the rewards unique to collaboration and facilitating to advance my particular corner of the creative arts far outweigh any possible rewards I might find in another field. I'm not sure the NYTimes would be able to see this satisfaction I'm able to live on, nor could they easily spin it into something the masses would be interested in reading, and I'm okay with that for the time being....

If I craved that attention, I think by definition I wouldn't be as good at what I do.

That's not to say I don't appreciate being appreciated!

And re. the term "accompanist" -- it's occurring to me that an unwritten, perhaps unofficial, standard in NYC is for operatic coaches to be referred to more often as "pianists" and "coaches" (if they coach), and the term "accompanist" mainly used for broadway pianists.

And finally, some personal perspective from ChiarinaEstrella: 

As I haul through the heaviest part of kids' competition season, I have the opportunity to notice - and feel quite keenly with my high stress level - the microcosm of attitudes towards accompanists just through the group of kids I'm working with.

Some have never known another accompanist, while some have had three, four or more. They are always incredibly eager for feedback - especially with competitions this weekend. I do my level best to do as much as I can for them. This is helped in large part by the teachers, who generally treat me like a goddess. Most of the parents go along with it, and learn as they go, and many treat me like gold. A certain few (mostly strings, the ones that see me most) bring me jewelry and chocolate and coffee gift cards at Christmas!

But then there are exceptions, and they are hard to take when I'm really stressed, sometimes even from the people I know best that know better. Forms were turned in by a teacher for one competition mere seconds from the deadline, for a kid I've never met before - without so much as word one to me from the teacher. She has yet to say boo to me at t minus 4 days. What is the teacher thinking? One parent who really ought to have known better waited a very long time to contact me, and then gave me a super limited window of times to work with for rehearsal, all based on her convenience and included the child's social schedule, not reality - I had to drop her and let someone else pick her up (for whom she suddenly had workable times - gee!) The mother doesn't seem to understand how these things work - or, more to the point, apparently does, and just wasn't willing to put out the effort. Another does seem to hold my playing and coaching in high regard, but is flaky as fine pastry.

It's really eye-opening when some parents are astonished by my pricing. I'm charging about the same as the going rate as a lesson at the school they go to for this kind of thing, yet every year, at least one parent seems unpleasantly surprised. I often undercharge when I know the family is under financial stress, and even then, one person will always nickel and dime me (generally someone that could afford far more than my rates). Some seem to think that I'm a service employee and will have wide swaths of time open just for them, yet would never hesitate to wait weeks for an appointment with their doctor or their hairdresser.

The good outweighs the bad in the long run, or I wouldn't do it, but I feel the wrong attitudes and abuses of my work far more keenly when I'm under stress; as well, at this time of year, a lot of yahoos come out of the woodwork for these big events, so I see more of the bad attitudes at this point as well. I just try to remind myself of the little 9 year old pianist who thinks having an orchestra for his Mozart is the coolest thing *ever*, or the one teenage singer that had never met me before and came in bubbling over with gratitude before I had even played a note, and then it's all ok.

Thank you for the level of thought and writing that went into those comments, and keep them coming! Readers' Commentary (with links to authors wherever possible) will now be a continuing series on the Collaborative Piano Blog.