Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Accompanist or equal - fair treatment?

Interesting article on BBC radio today. A pianist was bemoaning the fact that when she plays chamber music duo’s with most usually a violinist, though sometimes a singer, she:

• Is often described as an accompanist – even though she may be of equal skill and standing as the other performer, who is described as a soloist
• Is often paid less than the other performer
• Is often barely mentioned by reviewers, who concentrate on the "soloist" performance

This was not personalised, as many pianists reported similar experience. The point was made that often the composer was a pianist and composed music for “piano and violin”. Often the piano part was as difficult or more difficult musically than the other part.

There were various arguments and anecdotes to and fro, and it was generally the case that this anomaly, if it is one, only applies to duo chamber music.

So, do you guys believe that pianists in this case, where the artists are of equivalent standing, should not be described as accompanists but receive equal billing and reward?

Adrian

Indeed they should. Much of this literature involves co-equal instruments. I wonder if voice is a possible exception. I don't know that stuff.

I would heartily recommend Gerald Moore's book "Am I Too Loud?" As well as being a fine musician (sometimes touted as the greatest vocal accompanist of the 20th century), he was also a damned good story-teller. He regularly performed/recorded with such luminaries as Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, Kathleen Ferrier, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, to name but a few... in his book he discusses at some length the question Adrian has raised above.

- Michael B.

yeah, they should. my teacher is like that and deserves more than he got. he plays both solo and accompanying, and equally good on both. i'm often amazed by what he can do on piano.

what i find hard about accompanying is being directed..

i work out a wonderful arrangement and booom.. it's all wrong. I have learned to very particularly learn a piece exactly as it is written and not try and interpret it and then let the energy of the director flow thru me.. Thing is, she's so advanced and i am not quite up to par..

i just have to remember that i am a machine.. just a machine. (not that i do not enjoy being part of a 'production')

So, do you guys believe that pianists in this case, where the artists are of equivalent standing, should not be described as accompanists but receive equal billing and reward?
They should receive equal pay for equal work.

But I think, with regard to the "wording" that it is nothing more than the ego of the artist not wanting to "come in second."

I don't think voice is an exception - I'm working on Frauenlieben und Leben (Schumann) with a soprano at the moment - it ends with about 20 bars of piano solo. We're also doing Morgen (Strauss) which has a fabulous piano part which could almost be a solo piece, Befreit (Strauss again) where the piano part is quite bravura and at least equal with the voice, and Ich Harre Dein/I long for the (Rachmaninov) which has the piano reprising the theme at the end, solo, and finishes with a huge e flat major arpeggio - really makes the pianist stand out!

As for billing and payment - well in reality that comes down to how famous the performers are.

I love accompanying - the way the players have to react to each other all the time. Duets are perhaps the most intense form of chamber music in terms of the need for the musicians to work closely. Sometimes it's almost like telepathy the way 2 musicians can pick up ideas and emotions, and play exactly together with only the slightest of visual or audio cues.

This is another area where the ideal does not match reality.

Sure, it would be nice to have equal pay for equal work, and that often is the case, but there are scenarios that reflect a different reality:

Emanuel Ax and Yo Yo Ma perform the Brahms Cello/Piano sonatas in recital: My guess is their pay is on a similar scale.

Dietrich FD and Gerald Moore perform Dichterlibe: Dietrich gets paid more because he is the name, and draws the audience (how many people attended bacause Gerald Moore was the pianist?)

Anne Sophie Mutter performs the Strauss violin sonata in recital, and the pianist - playing one of the most difficult piano chamber music parts - is Lambert Orkis.( Who the heck is he? ) : Guess who gets paid more.

There is a difference between playing as an accompanist (for example, playing Schubert Leider, the pianist is an accompanist to the singer, IMO), and as a chamber musician (Chopin Cello Sonata, Poulenc Clarinet Sonata, etc). Difficulty or execution doesn't come into it, I think it is purely based on the interaction between the musicians.

I did a lot of piano work with singers when I was in college, and I've done a lot of work as a singer myself working with other pianists. If that confuses you, I think of myself as a singer who can play piano too.

As to pay, it depends on where you are in your career, how famous you are, and how much you can command. When I was in college, the singers would pay me to play for their recital work. And I have had to pay pianists to play for my recital work. Later on in a career, if a singer is very talented and famous, the singer will almost always get more than the pianist.

I disagree with MAX W, who feels that in "playing Schubert Lieder, the pianist is an accompanist to the singer," as differentiated from other music he cites. There may be times when the piano part devolves into an accompaniment pattern for a while, but rarely. But even when it does, the nature of the accompaniment pattern will suit the poem, and must be played accordingly. Schubert's piano writing is almost always very integral to the poems and the vocal line in Schubert. The piano part in Schubert's songs is often very demanding.

I envy JOHNEB who is working on "Frauenliebe und Leben," and "Morgen." It makes me wish I was back in college doing that kind of work. I loved being a pianist for singers. The repertoire was very demanding and very rewarding for both singer and pianist.

As to ADRIAN's original post, I do agree that there is something dismissive about being called an "accompanist."

Tomasino

As for billing and payment - well in reality that comes down to how famous the performers are.
Yeah, I sort of left that out of my post as an "understood". Guess I should've thrown it in....

"I disagree with MAX W, who feels that in "playing Schubert Lieder, the pianist is an accompanist to the singer," as differentiated from other music he cites. There may be times when the piano part devolves into an accompaniment pattern for a while, but rarely. But even when it does, the nature of the accompaniment pattern will suit the poem, and must be played accordingly. Schubert's piano writing is almost always very integral to the poems and the vocal line in Schubert. The piano part in Schubert's songs is often very demanding."

Yes and I'm not disputing that - but the nature of the music is that the piano is accompanying the soloist. In a piece of chamber music the piano will have a much more integral part to the music, themes will be swapped and developed on the different instruments, and they will be treated more as 2 different voices of the same instrument than 2 separate instruments.

MAX, I'm afraid we still disagree.

You write: "In a piece of chamber music the piano will have a much more integral part to the music, themes will be swapped and developed on the different instruments, and they will be treated more as 2 different voices of the same instrument than 2 separate instruments."

That statement would be equally true for all of the German Lieder, French Melodie, and art song I have ever sung or played.

Just this evening I watched a French movie entitled "Look at Me," which opens and ends with Schubert's "An die Musik." And with your earlier post in mind, I was especially aware of the wonderful interweaving of the left hand countermelody with the the treble melody. The piano was hardly a mere accompaniment in this Schubert song.

In paging through a volume of 50 Schubert Lieder, I find example after example of songs in which the piano is integral to the music, and where themes are developed, sometimes seperately, and sometimes they are swapped back and forth and developed further, and often they are put in counterpoint. Schubert makes real use of the piano in his Lieder, and hardly regards the piano as a mere accompaniment.

Having said that, I acknowledge that there is a difference in how skilled composers treat the piano in chamber music and song. Song involves words and poetry, and often in song, particularly in Schubert, a large part of delivering the text is given to the piano. This is sometimes called "word painting:" the sound of the wind in "Der Lindenbaum" is given to the piano; the sound of the horse's hoofs in "der Erlkoenig" is given to the piano; the sound of the spinning wheel in "Gretchen am Spinnrade" is given to the piano.

The sounds and motifs of "word painting" are sometimes, but not often, exchanged with the singer, and it may seem at first glance like a mere accompaniment pattern. But it is much more than that, as it is integral to the whole music/poem combination--the very idea of song. Again, the piano is hardly taking a back seat here. It may be a little bit different than chamber music in this particular way, but it is just as interesting and just as integral.

Tomasino


Tomasino

In the program AJB referre to a pianist (and I think music teacher) talked about changing the way he played in response to the letters at the start of the words the singer was singing - they played an example with and without this technique, and (I guess they exaggerated a bit to make the point) it was very obvious. When paying attention to the letter sounds the pianist would, for example, delay slightly in striking the chord when it's a consonant which takes some time to pronounce - like r or w or l. With harder consonants and with vowels he would play more in strict tempo.

That's an oversimplificatino of what was happening but I hope you get the idea. In think many experienced pianists would do this anyway, when playing with a singer, as it's natural to play sympathetically to the style of the music. In many songs, particularly romantic period onwards, the vocalist has plenty of opportunity for rubato and expression, and the pianist clearly has to follow this.

Equally, I have asked singers to slow down or hold back to allow me to manage a tricky jump or difficult passage, and of course they need to know to hold back when the piano part has a spread chord (arpeggiated, whatever, you know when there's a wiggly line). It's all about give and take between the parts.

It can also be a very emotional experience, playing with a singer. I was once playing at some auditions and a really beautiful young soprano was singing over my shoulder (only one copy of the music) while I was sightreading my way through something big. For whatever reason we just gelled, both our performances were boosted as a result and we both got a big rush from it. Needless to say she got the part...

Incidentally, to hear the program, go here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml then find Am I Too Soft. It will probably only be available untli May 2nd I think.

Most of the literature for piano and other soloist comes from the era before solo recitals. Liszt gave the first, but they were not common until the latter part of the 19th Century. A concert given by a pianist would usually feature another instrument and a singer, who were expected to break up the monotony of a solo piano recital. The music for this sort of performance would feature the piano prominently, since that was the artist who was putting it on.