As an adolescent in high school who enjoyed playing solo piano, I was somewhat of a star. Pianists sometimes get to be stars too, you know. In world class solo piano, some of the brightest were Franz Liszt and Clara Wieck Schumann in the nineteenth century; and Vladmir Horowitz and Artur Rubinstein in the twentieth century and they had quite the rivalries. If you have not had that first-class world tour at a young age, or haven’t found yourself to be a late-bloomer, you don’t get to be a Prima donna and must play as part of some other ensemble to earn your keep as a pianist, often with a choir. Furthermore, accompanists, choral vocalists, and choral conductors are not called to be prima donnas. It is about cohesion, blend, support, ensemble, and things greater than ourselves. Perhaps our art as choral musicians is greater than solo music, instrumental or vocal.
I am writing in advocacy of pianists who play for choirs. In the piano world the term “accompanist” is problematic because it is thought to be demeaning. Pianists who play for choirs need to be humble, however. A new politically correct term is “collaborative pianist.” I see this professed point because there is a conversation between the vocalists and the pianists. No offense my fellow pianists, but rarely do people come to listen to choirs for the pianist. A choir concert is a choir concert. The same thing applies in church; the tradition has always been that vocal music comes before instrumental. On the other end, perhaps is a little more absurd is preferring to be called a “piano player.” (One of my teachers actually said that). I don’t have any problems being called an accompanist. People think this is lovely and I think it is actually the best way to describe a pianist for choirs. I think it best describes our art. Gerald Moore describes it very nicely is his autobiography, Am I Too Loud?
It is the practical things regarding the accompanist that really need change and here are my suggestions so we can all get along. First, please get me the music in adequate time. I’m a professional and have a few degrees but choir directors, singers, and employers please listen; I was given plenty of exams in music school and you already hired me. Do you HAVE to test my sight-reading? Getting music to me one or two days before, or worse, minutes before (!) and already we have bad feelings. Music is about feelings and spirituality so let’s try not to start off on the wrong foot. If it is an emergency, then it is an emergency and I have ALSO been trained for emergencies, but please don’t do it too often. At very least if you expect me to sight-read, let me know beforehand.
Secondly, you get paid, and so do I. Good pianists are not a dime a dozen despite what you may have heard. Being treated like you are not important because you are not paid adequately does not foster good feelings. Accompanists give singers what the need and what they want, doing so whether they know what they need or want, or whether they don’t know what they need or want, but giving it to them anyway. I won’t be greedy but I expect to be paid and respected.
Thirdly, the singers can and should be the main focus, but say thanks and chat with me occasionally, and acknowledge me during the concert. From my end I promise to be diligent, to follow directions, follow the art and to know, love, and appreciate choral music and to sing myself for both training and spiritual purposes (yes sometimes I need to do that). I promise to show up punctually with a pencil, read open-score, play difficult piano parts, play easy piano parts, play parts originally for piano and parts originally for orchestra, plunk out notes, sit quietly for seconds, minutes, parts of an hour during rehearsals (hopefully not more than an hour), sight-read occasionally and only occasionally and perform under you during concerts. And not to complain about this stuff out loud.
Randy Yoder says
Stephanie Henry says
Patricia Abbott says