The Collaborative Pianist vs The Collaborative Partner

 

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, considering 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 until now, even in the leading music hubs  of the world. Only a few years ago,  I heard in New York the word accompanist relating 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 as a  camouflaged  performer of a 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 relationship between people in coexistence or in action,  that function creatively only if they are mutual. These are friendship and partnership. I am unable 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 the talent.

·        I happened to come across a mockery 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  of 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, but 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.