Piano Reduction – noun

‘A musical score having the parts condensed or simplified… 

{in two staves???} to render the music playable on the piano by one person.’

dictionary.com

Following my last post, I received an overwhelming response from composers emailing me to ask about specific voicings and scenarios that may fall outside of the common SATB voicing. So, I figured I would offer a second post that addresses some of these scenarios.

A Review: Six Rules for Piano Reductions

First, here is a reminder of the six basic rules that I follow when creating a piano reduction:

1. Don’t consider it – do it. 

2. Know what to omit.

3. Keep the melody and the bass parts. 

4. Maintain the vertical harmonies.

5. Always maintain the rhythmic integrity, but…

6. …Know what is idiomatic for the piano.

Non-SATB Scenarios: SSAA, TTBB, etc.

Both TTBB and SSAA scores often create more challenges in making a useful reduction due to the range of pitches determined by the voices of the singers.
Reductions for these voicings can be accomplished in two ways:
  1. Notes split between staves so the pianist can read from a grand staff (treble and bass clefs)
  2. All notes condensed into one stave (bass clef for TTBB, and treble for SSAA)
The former is often a quicker read for most pianists.
The latter is still useful, but may become awkward due to the potential of excessive ledger line usage to accommodate the vocal range.
Either is appropriate, but it’s important to remember that it’s a reduction – not meant for performance. It doesn’t have to be pretty – simply efficient for rehearsal so the pianist can be beneficial and not a hindrance.

For Example: SSAA

 

Below is an excerpt from my piece, Pine Needles, for SSAA choir. As explained in my last article, the music is laid out in open score format, meaning each voice receives its own stave.

Screen Shot 2016-01-22 at 3.21.47 PM

 

Based upon our options, a reduction could look like one of the following:

 

ONE STAVE (Treble Clef)

Screen Shot 2016-01-22 at 3.21.58 PM

TWO STAVES (Grand Staff)

Screen Shot 2016-01-22 at 3.20.01 PM

*Note that the following is omitted in both reductions:

  • Slurs for melismas
  • dynamics above the score
  • lyrics – the (good) conductor should always refer to measure numbers)
  • unison notes
  • effects such as glissandi, vocal percussion, etc. Though not included in this score, these occur frequently in new works and should not be included for the pianist.

*Note that the following is maintained in both reductions:

  • articulation
  • dynamics, located in standard position for piano scores
  • tempo indicators

*This secondary set of rules can and should be applied to TB, TTB, etc. scores.

 

So, which should I create? 

 

Though it could be argued that matter of preference could determine which to use, I definitely advocate for ONE STAVE in this scenario.

  • It provides exact pitches for the singers, not at octave displacement
  • It is much clearer to read and enables the pianist to focus solely upon the treble clef for quick reading
  • It avoids bass clef ledger lines, which are commonly misread by many, even accomplished, pianists

 

Final Considerations

 

In addition to the Six Basic Rules for all piano reductions, and the omissions and maintained elements seen above, take into consideration the following:

  • Range: which version creates excessive ledger lines?
  • Number of voices: the more voices, the more congested the reduction can be
  • Rhythmic makeup: depending on the piece, intricate polyphony may be challenging to present in a useful reduction. A fugue? You bet – easy. Half of the ensemble singing homophony while the other half is singing polyrhythms? That may require some accommodations, octave displacement or a predominance of one rhythm over another.

I’d love to hear from you – composers, pianists, and conductors alike. What are you seeing and finding effective?

 

With gratitude,

The Pianist

 

P.S. I’d love to suggest to dictionary.com that their definition might change, omitting the ‘two staves’ qualifier.

“Collaborative Piano is a term used to denote a field of the piano profession where a pianist works in collaboration with one or more instrumentalists, singers, dancers, or other artists.”

The Collaborative Piano Blog, 11/7/2005


Accompanist…or Collaborative Pianist?

Over the past 15 years, I have enjoyed the privilege (most of the time) of playing the piano with countless individuals, ensembles, and events around the world – choirs, orchestras, instrumental and vocal soloists, congregations, house parties, conferences, nursing homes, and even political primaries. The definition from The Collaborative Piano Blog is fairly on point, but I struggle with this conversation around identity. The term “collaborative pianist” is a fairly recent term (1990s), and the reasons for its emergence cause me to wonder: what’s the deal with the new nomenclature for pianists?

Each time I have sat at the piano and performed, my role has been acknowledged in a variety of ways, and my practice of retaining a program from every piano performance has yielded the following results:

  • Kevin T. Padworski, Piano
  • Kevin T. Padworski, Pianist
  • Kevin T. Padworski, Accompanist
  • Kevin T. Padworski, Musician
  • Kevin T. Padworski, Keys
  • Kevin T. Padworski, Collaborative Pianist
  • Kevin T. Padworski, Collaborative Artist
  • Kevin T. Padworski, Collaborator
  • Kevin T. Padworski, Keyboard
  • Kevin T. Padworski, Keyboarder (favorite)

and very often, no mention at all.

Why the inconsistency and confusion around how folk understand this role?

The Collaborative Piano Blog continues its definition of the “collaborative pianist” with the following statements:

“This field is also referred to with its former name as Piano Accompanying, a term which has traditionally implied inferiority, subservience, working “for” rather than “with” a recital partner. Collaborative piano, on the other hand, is a term that implies equality, association, and teamwork.”

Once this term hit the American academic realms, many schools began offering degrees in Collaborative Piano. Over 100 schools now offer this degree, seemingly distinguishing those who actively seek experience working with other musicians as opposed to a solo piano career. But most of the world doesn’t know that this degree exists, or that there is a difference – most simply hear, I got a degree in piano. (This usually results in a comment like, Well, I hope you find a spouse/partner with a good paying job…HAHA.)

It appears that this term resulted from a general feeling from pianists that their role as “accompanist” was accompanied (ha) by an apparent lack of appreciation felt from those with whom they worked. Certainly, most pianists can attest that the amount of gratitude received does not often equate to the felt significance of his or her role. But do we need to create a title just to feel justified or affirmed? Indeed, pianists are incredibly versatile and can fulfill many roles in performance. This could cause confusion among non-musicians about how to address these people. But does the creation of a new term actually help eradicate the insecurities that this term sought to fix?

The author of the other blog does follow up with a post seeking to define what it is notThe following statement from that post sums up what I believe has been the result of the new term:

“Having a distinction between collaborative pianists and accompanists creates an apartheid system in the profession where:

Accompanists = hack pianists that suck

Collaborative Pianists = really good accompanists.”

This is obviously not true, yet it remains as a toxic thought that permeates the performing world.

However, pianists seem to be the only performing medium that seeks to redefine themselves in order to gain more attention. I don’t see instrumentalists or vocalists listing themselves as a collaborative oboist, collaborative cellist, or collaborative soprano (insert joke here). 

…I don’t believe I can support the creation of a new term or degree simply to appease the insecurities of a few. Obviously, there are many Collaborative Pianists out there that can attest that neither their relationship nor their sense of appreciation from their respective ensemble has changed due to their re-naming in a concert program. So, what’s the point? 

I have worked hard to set professional boundaries and expectations with each of the ensembles with whom I work as “pianist.” Similarly, I have intentionally crafted my career to include both roles as conductor and pianist so that I am continually reminded of how it feels from both perspectives of collaboration… With those that don’t respect the work that I do, I sever that relationship. Instead of seeking to find worth from a title, create worth in the way that you work with people. 

Where do we go from here?

Seeing as there are many thoughts surrounding titles and roles for pianists, and acknowledging that there is no right or wrong, here is a basic guideline for working with a pianist for your particular music group:

  1. First, simply ask the pianist how he/she/they want to be addressed. They will have their own sense of their role and what enables them to feel honored for their role in the performance.
  2. The pianist is not yours. Stop referring to them in this way: “My accompanist…”
  3. Although they are amazing people and highly intuitive musicians, pianists are not mind readers. Offer the professional courtesy of a rehearsal plan, measure number,  or upcoming repertoire selection. This enables us to do our job the best we can.
  4. Offer pianists a real piano. This sounds like an unnecessary statement, but more often than not, pianists have to ‘make-do’ with something that doesn’t even come close. Compare that 49-key ‘piano’ to a laptop with half of its screen functioning, a speaker that only produces 30% of its volume, and the asdfghjkl;’123456 keys not functioning on the keyboard.
  5. Regardless of how you address a pianist, treat them as your colleague. Colleagues work as a team with specific roles and skills to create something together. Honor that relationship with respect and gratitude.