1. Introduction to partnership in music
Let
me present here a handful of personal or even proprietary thoughts. Even though the musical community uses virtually the same terminology, I have never come across any trace of a
reasonably similar or closely related issue. I have never heard it from anyone,
and nobody has taught me anything about it, strictly speaking. They are the
result of my experience and thoughts, from the times of my intense presence on
stage – from which fate has irrevocably removed me – and from the time I have
spent in university halls, where, together with my students, we uncover the
mysteries of Art, perhaps the most beautiful and refined fruit of the human
spirit.
Motives? I have explained my views on
partnership on stage, in studios, and in TV broadcasts. I now explain it to my
students. I thought I should leave a written account of my views. Perhaps it
will last longer than my concerts and lectures?
Besides, in my searches in libraries
and on the internet, I have not come across any publications about partnerships between people.
I am somewhat surprised because I perceive a successful partnership to be
essential. It's the prime component in successful co-existence and,
in the case of musicians (of whom only a few function as individual artists), the partnership is a leading value in professional life and self-fulfillment. Yet
little has been said about the partnership as such!
Partnership, when we take a closer
look at it, is a very extensive concept, although it is difficult to grasp and
systematize. In effect, it appears to me as a mosaic composed of many elements,
without priority or hierarchy, or as the image we see in a kaleidoscope. So,
that is the form of expression I have adopted here.
2. Partnership
This presentation has originally named the
Lecture on Partnership in Music. However, I insisted on replacing its name with
the current one: A Few Reflections on Partnership in Music.
Lectures are generally associated with the
atmosphere of science, and it is commonly expected that the presented concepts
will tend towards generalization with the focus on seeking regularities and
uniform, patent solutions.
The atmosphere of reflections is quite
different as it flourishes when given a certain degree of freedom; it allows
for individual, personal concepts which, even if absolutely right, still ensure
some space for spontaneity and individual perception of a problem. I would
venture to suggest that reflections allow one to approach a mystery without the
obligation to fully explore it and give it a name.
For my personal convenience, I use a simple,
or even simplistic image to compare science with art. It is a crossword puzzle.
If you want science, you just need the vertical and horizontal words to fit
together. And in art? The horizontal is perfect, the vertical fit fine, but
there’s no art whatsoever!
The reflections which I would like to share
with you now belong to the world of art, even if they do not dwell directly in
the world of sounds. However, they refer to the unique reality of a group of
people marked with the stigma of art and the mysterious capabilities which are
called talent or just an ability, irrespective of their depth. In fact, it
would be difficult to find the one and only solution which would be totally
fair and correct. This space allows for the mystery of intuition and special
sensitivity.
Naturally, that universe rests upon the
foundation of professional skills and special knowledge which can be learned and
acquired. You can learn a profession. However, nobody succeeded yet in learning
a talent! I am deeply convinced that my reflections fall into the category of profession, and
they might prove useful for those who seek their own place in the art
world, which is difficult to dwell in.
Personally, I think that there are three ideas
which bind people together and form a significant aspect of their successful
living together. They are love which is an emotion, friendship which is an
alliance, and partnership which is
wisdom.
The Internet repository clearly points to
the privileged position of love in literature. Geniuses of the pen have used a
sea of ink for the purpose, starting almost from the dawn of human history, and
the trend continues. Just think about the Song of Songs by Solomon,
Greek mythology in bulk (or almost), innumerable poems, epics, novels, and
parables.
Although the concept of friendship is
present in the Iliad, the Bible, and the works of outstanding writers including
Cervantes, Goethe, Krasicki, and Prus to mention some Polish novelists, it
is just a fraction in comparison to love.
How about a partnership? The literature is
silent. Only recently, have some journalists begun to mention it. It is quite
surprising, considering that human partnership seems to be a patent and
efficient guarantee of successful cooperation and coexistence with others and
it seems to offer the greatest chance to create a mutual version of reality.
Love is not so reliable, as “it is a
gypsy's child, and it has
never, never known the law.” For that matter, friendship may also fail
to survive the confrontation with various very challenging situations.
I sometimes think that partnership is still
waiting for Shakespeare or a philosopher similar to Kotarbiński. My own Essay
is just a tiny, unprecedented, and pioneering prelude to something which has not
yet been called into existence. After starting to work on it, I was amazed to
realize that the concept of partnership in music is not so distant from the human
partnership in general and actually, they seem exactly the same if one sets the
paraphernalia of music aside. Therefore, the topic of partnership in music has
become for me an excuse or a tool for exploring the fascinating, vast
phenomenon of partnership as a universal concept.
More than 60 years from now, an outstanding artist Edmund
Kossowski who was at the height of his potential at that time, made a
recording of the Winterreise with me,
a fresh graduate of the State Academy of Music PWSM. That recording, now an
archival one, became the leaven of my lifelong passion. From the very beginning
of our work together, I have been aware that Franz’s song is a single piece
written for two performers – the singer and the pianist, and that both are
shouldering the indivisible responsibility for the optimal performance of that
masterpiece.
Another personal discovery was the awareness
of the fact that all the performances of music are either solo pieces or teamwork
in partnership with others and there is no other option. I am positive that
partnership, in contrast to the deformed relation between the soloist and his
accompanist, forms the best and most
creative foundation for ensemble performances.
Just a few words about the accompaniment
and the accompanist and their role as the art and the service. The so-called
accompaniment constitutes an integral part of a musical work and similarly to
all the other parts it has to be performed impeccably, in the perfect context
of the relationship between the leading and supporting element. Let us examine
Chopin’s Nocturnes as an example: the right hand there weaves the
leading chant of the Nocturne and the left one is the accompaniment
that supports it. However, if the left hand’s accompaniment is done poorly, it
will spoil even the most exquisite flow of the right hand. Actually, there is
no need to analyze the Nocturne as an example. Even the simplest Alberti Bass can be performed shamefully or ideally, it can either corrupt the
performance or create it. A pianist who is performing so-called accompaniment
should never part with the awareness that he is an artist and a co-creator of
the performance who is drawing from the whole palette of his skill as a
professional pianist.
The
artistic work should not be marred by any problems stemming from the
relationship between the performers, as such a relationship should always be established
partnership-wise. Things get tangled
when the relationship between the so-called soloist and accompanist is burdened
with negative connotations. In schools of all levels including the academies,
the teachers, even the highly respectable ones, commit an alarming mistake when
they encode in their students’
perception a concept of a pianist/accompanist who is there just to
provide a service. It happens even while working on sonatas which are still commonly defined as
instrumental works with piano accompaniment. This scandalous deformation can
leave a lifelong scar even on renowned artists.
Regrettably, the problematic relationship
between a privileged performer and an accompanist who is obligatorily
subordinated is still an issue, even in the trivial sense. Such disparate relations between the
performers translate into the artistic effect of the performance. There is a
noticeable difference in the quality of Mozart’s songs performed by Elizabeth
Schwarzkopf with an accompanist, even though he is named the emperor of
accompanists and by the same Schwarzkopf with Walter Gieseking, the king of
pianists of that era. It seems that the reason is purely psychological: one can
either be a partner, understood as one of two equally important performers, or
an accompanist, even if his contribution is of perfect quality.
Mosaic
1. Freedom, the basis for partnership
For any type of partnership! As I
comprehend it, partnership functions between free people. Submissiveness,
distortions, and deformities of freedom, though common, are of no interest to
me.
Freedom is neither given nor bestowed
by grace upon anyone. Freedom is a fundamental need of man which is his due,
like light and air, simply by dint of being alive.
Attempts to restrict or steer freedom
unleashes the demons of intolerance and anguish that only man can inflict upon
man. So as not to be misunderstood, I would like to stress that I do not
consider the changing and evolving requirements of living together in society
to be limitations on freedom – rather, I regard them as composing the
"culture of co-existence", broadly understood. This culture, if
observed by everyone, would render doubtful the need for all legal codes and
religious commandments.
Together
but free, as I call it with a smile: Zusammen,
aber frei. A deep sense of freedom, respect for obvious professional
discipline, observance of the aforementioned culture of co-existence, and the
insights into the partnership I outline below – form fertile grounds for the
success of music that is performed together, artistic success, and
self-fulfillment experienced by each of the partners.
2. Partnership. The explanation of the
concept
The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1990 defines
partnership in the following way: “Partnership, a voluntary association of two or more persons for the purpose of managing a
business enterprise and sharing its profits or losses”.
Britannica, possibly the best encyclopedia worldwide, has
provided a definition that seems perfect. Nothing more, nothing less. It
encompasses everything, clearly and concisely.
However, just after having read it I recalled an excellent,
wise, and significant story about an inquisitive student who asked his master if
the whole Torah could be reduced just to
one sentence. I suspect that the reply of the master was spiced with a
philosophical smile: „Naturally, what is hateful to you, do not
do to your neighbor’. This is the whole Torah. The rest is a
commentary”.
The partnership seems to constitute a similar case. The
encyclopedic definition provides an essence reduced to one brief sentence, and
obviously, it can always be supplemented with a commentary. Naturally, the
commentary you are going to read now is personal, as I would never venture to
think, even for a moment, about providing a universal one.
Let me begin with a reflection that nothing happens by
itself; all the culture and all creative relations between men require effort,
involvement, wisdom, persistence, even devotion, and other similar, related
values.
The indispensable, basic condition for a musician is to
achieve the highest possible level of professional skill.
I decided to choose twelve of the most important values to
discuss in my personal commentary, without arranging them in any hierarchical
order. Just a kind of the “Dodecalogue of the Partnership in Music”. I hope they may serve as a list of elements
necessary to create a reasonably coherent whole.
Here they are:
The first value: Shared responsibility for the whole
performance
To keep things orderly, let me first quote a
great definition of the music work by the wonderful, invaluable professor
Kazimierz Sikorski: „Although a music work is a unity, it consists of many
elements: melody, rhythm, harmony, dynamics, agogics, articulation,
counterpoint, form, and emotional contents”.
A soloist performs all elements of musical work on his
own, at his sole responsibility. His is the success and he is the failure. He
does not have to reckon with anybody or anything.
The responsibility for a partner-like ensemble
performance is of dual character:
besides the part of the work performed by an individual artist, it concerns
also the value of the whole work. The performer is constantly aware that
his contribution, if meager, will degrade
the whole performance by depreciating the effort and involvement of the other
participants.
The second value: Reciprocity
It is impossible to imagine a one-sided partnership, or,
similarly, a friendship. Only unrequited love is imaginable in some sense. Any
expectations of happiness and success on the part of an infatuated person are
his or her personal problem, and the responsibility is also his or hers.
I have always thought - allow me to
quote myself - that the fact that I love you does not oblige you to anything
and does not authorize me to anything.
The third value: Understanding the partner
Understanding is meant here
both
in the literal and wider sense. Understanding in the literal,
simple sense also seems quite significant, perhaps contrary to
appearances. Every person, even if
speaking a common, native language, expresses his thoughts and chooses his
vocabulary following a characteristic pattern; each of us has an individual
sense of humor and a style of approaching others. Various, quite common
misunderstandings which often are so irritating, result precisely from such
seemingly trifling details.
The wider meaning of this aspect which reaches deeper into
the domain of psychology embraces the knowledge of individual features of a
partner including his temperament and personality. Gender differences are also
significant. Musical partnership with a man or a woman has always felt
different to me. It may be considered insignificant from a purely
professional viewpoint, but at the same time, it is one of the nuances which
affect the comfort of being together.
The fourth value: Openness to dialogue
I quite enjoy the
adage that two monologues do not make up a dialogue. True enough, when each of
the partners is focused only on his part without any contact with the
utterances of the other partner, the dialogue simply is not there. This
concerns equally the musical dialogue and dialogue of our everyday
co-existence with another person.
The fifth value: Readiness to understand the otherness of the
partner
Although it is generally known that every person is unique and one of a kind, this fact is surprisingly often forgotten in
everyday relations. This is particularly
true for a long-lasting arrangement with one or more partners. The
understandable differences may turn into a problem when initial attraction
gives way to unavoidable irritation.
Also, it is not so easy to accept the fact that the
readiness to understand the otherness of the partner should be reciprocal; our
partner should be equally willing to understand our idiosyncrasies.
The awareness of this phenomenon is invaluable as it
greatly facilitates all and any ventures into this delicate and extremely
sensitive territory.
The sixth value: Internal space
I mean primarily the space for thoughts that allows for relatively conflict-free
existence and collaboration with a partner, free from doctrines, narrowed
aesthetic preferences, world-outlook bias, moral and even historic
encumbrances, not to mention traces of racial connotations.
Such space provides a considerable luxury and comfort of
being together and working with a partner, ensuring an almost absolute guarantee
of the freedom of artistic expression without any risk to the comfort of being
together.
The seventh value is: Ability to hear the partner and oneself
at the same time
This ability is one of the fundamental differences between
solo and ensemble performances. The fact that the soloist hears only himself is
by no means a discovery. In turn, an ensemble performer must – really must –
hear himself perfectly and at the same time hear and understand the part played
by his partner.
I am sure that it is not only an ability but also a skill
that can be taught.
I do not see any special reason to explain how important
and valuable such hearing for the fascination in the creation of performative
art and everyday life is. Well, this obligation of simultaneous hearing and
understanding oneself and the partner should actually refer both to playing
together and to ordinary, every day being together with another person,
shouldn't it?
The eighth value: Good manners in togetherness
It might be
worthwhile to remind those good manners are obligatory for being together with
another person in any circumstances, both professional and in private
life. Any joint or shared activity
demands good-mannered behavior and reciprocal
communication, particularly in an atmosphere of tension and involvement in the
work.
The ninth value: Tactful reduction of tension
It seems obvious to me that
certain tensions are unavoidable in any partnership, even the most
comprehensive and perfect. It would be naïve to think that partnership is just
cakes and ale forever.
The tensions may stem from the richness of human nature,
but they may also result from seemingly trifling situations which sometimes
carry a hidden potential for a more serious conflict.
When such tensions do emerge, the ability to solve them
tactfully is simply priceless. Perhaps it is worth remembering that certain
discomfort experienced in the proximity of another person can be mutual, and
the partner may also feel uncomfortable with me. Ah, the reciprocity
requirement in partnership never ends!
The tenth value: The ability to accept compromise
It seems an obvious approach to the sensitive issue of
divergent aesthetic preferences. I find it highly comfortable to acknowledge
that the interpretation of a musical phrase does not necessarily have to be
identical for all the performers in the ensemble; all of them are professionals and, obviously,
none will propose any musical nonsense. Certain divergences and interpretation
nuances stem from understandable individual differences, and they can even make
the performance more attractive and colorful.
Any attempts at uniformity usually end up in failure.
This is the very space for compromise which allows for the otherness and the
freedom of speech.
The eleventh
value: Respect and confidence in the
partner
In
addition to the obvious respect for professional skill, this refers also to
purely humanistic values, to the approach to life, interactions with others as
well as the ability to cope with challenges and various co-existential problems
– in brief, to all the facets which combine into a full personality.
The confidence in the professionalism of the partner seems
self-evident, similar to the confidence in his general approach to life.
The twelfth
value: Understand the imperfections of your
partner... and yourself
The English adage Nobody
is perfect is not just a handy phrase. The understanding and
acknowledgment of this obvious, albeit inconspicuous truth protects against
harmful irritation, let’s keep the distance from one's own imperfections and
possibly prevent destructive frustration and excessive quandary.
As it has already been said, my commentary on the
encyclopedic definition is personal or even authorial. The dimension of the
concept of partnership and partnership in music, in particular, is huge and it
seems necessary to arrange its various elements in the order of importance. The
ones which have been presented here for my purpose hopefully provide a compact
and precise image of this absolutely fascinating relationship gracing our
professional and private life.
I am aware of the fact
that my concept of Partnership in Music
may be considered idealistic and it may not necessarily find its full
reflection in reality. However,
in my personal struggle I sometimes console myself with the thought that even
the Decalogue with its Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery or
Thou shalt not steal quite often fails to reflect the actual relations between people.
Following my private Decalogue, I have been calling and promoting in my
practice, “Thou shalt be a partner”, for
more than half of a century now, and yet “Be an accompanist” is what I still
hear much too often! And not only in music!
31. Teaching partnership
Every person learns the wisdom of
partnership by himself, on his own account, all life long. But
I assert that the professional basis for musical partnership and its
psychological determinants – like anything else, except for talent – can be taught. This is
exactly what I am trying to prove by my work at the Academy. I do not, strictly
speaking, teach students how to play the piano; instead, I teach the profession
and, above all, partnership. Intentionally and with commitment.
I try to make my young students aware
– usually with a positive result – that ensemble performance is on par with individual performance, in terms of
professional requirements and artistic expectations. I persuade them that one is an artist
when playing alone as well as when playing with another musician. The only
difference between artists is their talent and
level of professional perfection.
I also try to instill in them the
conviction that when they become fully-fledged artists in the future, working
primarily as ensemble musicians (and teachers), they will have all the
necessary conditions to do so with satisfaction and without frustration, a
feeling of degradation or a sense of having been wronged by fate. Indeed, it
seems impossible to overestimate this psychological aspect of the partnership.
A few words about the special
professional situation of pianists. The piano belongs to the small group of
instruments (organ, harpsichord, accordion, orchestra) which make it possible for one
musician to perform an entire work, with all of its elements. It's easy to
imagine pianists whose careers will bring them worldwide fame without any singing, playing, or conducting
partners.
There is no doubt that all other musicians
are dependent on the pianist. In fact, a sizeable proportion of the concert
activity of instrumentalists, those who play string instruments in particular,
would be impossible without the participation of a partnering pianist. How
many programs consisting of solo pieces for violinists or cellists could be put
together? The situation of vocalists is even more drastic, as they would be
unable to build a single recital on capella pieces
alone.
It
should also be kept in mind that teaching any musicians, especially singers,
would be difficult to imagine without a pianist.
This places special demands on the
education of pianists. Professional instrumental perfection is something
absolutely obvious, and the effort to achieve it should be continued, without
exception, until graduation (and thereafter, throughout one's professional life!). Pianists should be
prepared to meet the aforementioned requirements of partnership, professional
and above all psychological, in various proportions throughout the entire
period of their training, at least in secondary school and music academy
(university).
The need to instill the attitude in
students that their value is determined only by the quality of their
performance and not by whether they are ensemble players or soloists, together
with the fact that only a minute percentage of them will go on to have careers
as individual performers, makes the teaching of partnership all the more
important.
In this context, the failure to
understand the artistic equality of solo and ensemble playing exhibited by a
substantial portion of the pedagogic milieu is keenly regrettable, even
embarrassing. They continue, openly or more stealthily, to transmit to their
students a sense of contempt of ensemble performances, which they relegate to a lower category of art. In my view,
this attitude is reprehensible and unpardonable. This
problem concerns all disciplines, not just the piano.
At this point, I must pay tribute
to enlightened
members of the artistic community who, understanding the
professional equality and career importance of ensemble playing, have begun to
participate in the “struggle to emancipate” the chamber performance. The
evolution of these views and the readiness to
correct them is among the most positive and promising phenomena in the world of
classical music. The polarization of attitudes in this matter – provided that the
irritation and aggression it engenders remain in check – has also had a
creative effect as it stimulated
the search for optimal ideas and solutions. All of this has demonstrated
that dialogue (not two monologues, which do not, after all, make a dialogue) is the
most effective form of communication. I am
filled with joy to see it.
So as to avoid any misunderstandings,
I want to emphasize once more that I consider instrumental perfection and the
pursuit thereof to be a sine qua non of success and prime values in the ensemble as well as individual performance.
Here is something along the lines of my pedagogic credo:
There are two kinds of musical
performance: individual (soloist) and ensemble (chamber). Every musician can perform both types
of music, though in different proportions, depending on their own choice and
other conditions.
It is the duty of the Academy (University) - for the good
of Art and the student, the object of our efforts - to provide optimal training in both types of
performance to all students of the performing arts.
Experts in individual and ensemble performance should
teach each type of these two forms
of performance. In
the case of orchestra instrumentalists and singers, the same professors can play this role; in the case of pianists, in view of the importance of the problem and
its particular character, there is a justified need to provide two different
instructors. This necessity, depending
on honesty and artistic responsibility together with professional
preferences does not exclude in exceptional cases the possibility to train in
both, solo and chamber music, by one
pedagogue.
A basic – perhaps the most important –
duty of a chamber performance instructor, apart from teaching the fundamentals
of cooperation, is teaching respect for this type of performance.
The reason for the weakness of
ensemble performers, including orchestra musicians and all types of
pianist-teachers, lies not in the profession itself but in the psychological
sphere and professional attitudes. The standards of preparation for soloist and
ensemble pieces should be identical; in reality, these standards differ
drastically, to the detriment of chamber performance. I dare say that this is a
negative characteristic and weakness of the present-day culture of ensemble
playing.
It is untrue that weak performers of chamber music have
not been sufficiently prepared for playing this kind of music. They simply do not prepare
themselves well. In general, they work on
Beethoven’s Waldstein Sonata in a different way than on his Kreutzer
Sonata; they treat Schubert’s Impromptu differently than his Lieder,
they approach Paganini’s Caprices in one way and his orchestra parts in
another. Only when asked if they
would dare present a solo piece to a professor or perform it on stage without
any preparation do they react with embarrassment. But this is how ensemble music is performed
all too often.
During the several decades of my pedagogic activity, I have never come
across a "disinclination" to ensemble playing. However, I have often
encountered catastrophically inadequate ensemble skills among pianists and
their singing and instrumentalist partners.
Instead of playing many chamber pieces, it is much more
effective and useful to master only a few pieces during one's studies to serve
as a pattern and point of reference for all pieces that will be prepared
individually in the future.
In the case of teaching pianists,
terms such as “accompanist” and “accompaniment” should be avoided. These terms
are archaic and anachronistic, and often generate associations that are neither creative nor
positive. The division into “chamber music” and “accompaniment” is also
misleading, even scholastic.
A pianist, whether playing alone or
with another musician, should always be called a “pianist” – just as a violinist,
whether playing in an orchestra or standing in front of an orchestra, playing
alone or in a duo, always remains a “violinist”.
The more universal descriptions: INDIVIDUAL (SOLO) PERFORMANCE and ENSEMBLE (CHAMBER) PERFORMANCE are
closer to the truth. Likewise, the relationship between ensemble artists should
be described as PARTNERSHIP and not SOLOIST-ACCOMPANIST.
The
creation of specializations is an unnecessary, perhaps even harmful
construction of artificial structures. Instead of specialization, it is fundamentally
important to teach respect for ensemble performance and to inculcate the
imperative of adhering to the highest standards in the preparation, regardless of
the type of performance it is for.
The Academy - which has university status, thus
unrestricted horizons when it comes to thought
– should educate artists, not produce vocational school graduates.
Throughout the entire course of their studies, all music students should be
trained equally in both individual and ensemble performance, at the most demanding level. In essence, a graduate receives a minimum level of skills in soloist and chamber performance, as
well as professional consciousness. This forms a foundation that should enable
him to make initial decisions as to various specializations and other choices
in life.
Efforts should be made to offer a
wider range of courses for pianists
at the Academy, particularly with respect to ensemble performance. I suggest that such subjects be
offered as score reading, counterpoint, elements of composition, conducting, and even voice
emission. In my view, it would be crucial for any future decisions concerning
specialization, further development of one’s talent, and also for making university courses more student-friendly, and enhancing any individualized
education plans. (Bachelor's Programme and Master's Programme).
The Collaborative
Pianist vs The Collaborative Partner
In
English-speaking countries, the term collaborative pianist has been cultivated for quite a long time, assumedly
to replace the earlier hegemony of the
term accompanist.
This is
undoubtedly a positive step towards progress, in view of the long-standing
backward concept of calling the pianist
who performs with another performer just an accompanist, regardless of
the repertoire. In fact, the echoes of these absurdities continue to resound to
this day, even in the leading music hubs of the world. Only a few years ago, I heard in New York the word accompanist
in relation to a pianist who co-performed the Piano Quintet!!
I
confess that I oppose the notion of the collaborative pianist, and
absolutely opt for the collaborative partner. The collaborative
pianist sounds to me like a camouflaged performer of service that the
pianist is obliged to deliver to the
co-performer. The collaborative partner, or rather the collaborative
partnership, defines the relationship of the performers as reciprocal. In my perception, there are two fundamental
types of relationships between people coexistence or inaction, that function creatively only if they are
mutual. These are friendship and partnership. I am not able to imagine a
one-way friendship or partnership. They would be (or perhaps are?) twisted and false. Unfortunately, during my half-century-long association with ensemble playing
involving the piano, not once have I encountered the term collaborative co-performer, which
in my view is the only correct definition of the relationship with the pianist or, the collaborative singer, (violinist, cellist,
etc.). And since the collaborative
pianist is non-reciprocal, perhaps its effect will also be twisted and
false?
In my
view, the Collaborative Partner is the only creative relationship
between the pianist and the partner, whether the latter is an instrumentalist
or a singer. It has never been a problem
for me to realize that musical pieces are written for two
performers, and not for a soloist and an
accompanist. The value of performing a work composed for more than one musician
depends on the professional skills and abilities of the performer. In Chopin's
Polonaise for cello and piano, the so-called piano
accompaniment, played by Martha, actually places the leading element of Mischa's cello in the background. This is
undoubtedly the mystery of talent.
I happened to come across a mockery on the part of an
American author. He was ridiculing the expectation which in my opinion is
entirely correct, namely that the singer has a duty to collaborate with the
pianist as much as the pianist has a duty to collaborate with the singer. Dear Esteemed
Author, he really has to do it, right from the very beginning of a song!
I was easily able to convince my students and even participants in my in-master classes that a
song does not begin with the singing but with the pianist. Indeed, I have yet
to hear Gute Nacht initiated by a pianist, not by a singer, even if one
of them was Alfred and the other Dietrich.
In my view, the collaborative pianist in a duo performs a practical function
supporting the non-pianist, while the collaborative partner directly participates in the joint artistic creation of both performers.
Although I am aware that the subject sketched
here would need, well, maybe not a trilogy, at least an
essay or a column, I decided to use my favorite, compact form presenting just facts and reflections, without any literary adornments. And besides, the old saying
"a word is enough to the wise" still echoes in
my head.
