Accompanists

I've been asked to speak to a group of music teachers in a couple of months about accompanying. I can go any direction I want, but it was suggested that I might want to include training young accompanists. As I considered what I want to talk about, I decided that it might be best to structure my comments using my own musical history.

As I started making a list of people, events, and experiences that helped me to learn to accompany, I made a somewhat unsettling discovery: I received the training and nurturing that I needed as a young accompanist because I went to schools that couldn't afford to hire professional accompanists and coaches, and the church I attended does not hire professional musicians. I was given opportunities as an accompanist because there was no one else to do it.

I now live in an area where schools and churches hire professional musicians. In many ways, this is a good thing. The quality of the performances is better, and musicians are able to make money doing what we have invested a great deal of time and money in learning to do. I believe musicians should be paid, but what opportunities for training the next generation are missed when we hire professionals? Is there a way to hire professionals, maintain a high level of artistry, AND give young people the opportunities they need to learn?

Then the question becomes why should we teach young people to be accompanists? If that is truly the profession they want, there are many wonderful collaborative piano programs at the University level. Do students need collaborative experience prior to college? What about those that won't be pursuing this as a career, those students whose adult musical experiences will be avocational at best? Should we teach them to accompany and if so, why? What purpose will it serve?

Although I do occassionally take an accompanying gig, this is not my main source of income. However, the experiences I have had as an accompanist have shaped who I am as a musician, teacher, and human being.

Here is one small example from my accompanying "career" that changed me in more ways than just making me a better accompanist. Weston Noble is a big name in the choral world, especially here in the Midwest. When I was a student, and the choir accompanist, at Idaho State University, he came for a festival or clinic, or some similar event. I don't really remember the details, but I remember how he changed my life. I've always been really good at "following", but he encouraged me to do more. He taught me to be open to the music and how to work with him collaboratively, not merely follow his beat pattern. I don't really even remember what he said, but it changed the way I viewed the music, the way I viewed the performance experience, and the way I viewed myself. For a big event like that, perhaps they should have brought in someone with better technique and more experience, but I am very glad they didn't. And because they didn't I learned about trust.

I will never play as well as my accompanist/coach. She is amazing. But does that mean that I shouldn't call myself an accompanist or that I shouldn't play for groups or soloist when I am needed? Absolutely not! Yes, we need amazing accompanists and coaches, but there are places in the world where those of us that are just pretty good can do just fine. There are even times when those who doubt their skills can be great.

Watch for future posts as I explore who we should teach to accompany and why.

-- Posted from my iPhone