self explanatory really.......just wondered what people prefer.

I used to prefer piano.........still do for picking the song up..... but now i prefer tracks..... for most things, but theres some i'd NEVER sing pianoless!

x

I cannot really say that I prefer the piano down to the repertoire I sing.
What I CAN say though is that live accompaniment of any kind is always better than a backing track, because pre-recorded tracks are static and leave you almost no chance to really do your own interpretation. Of course you can do little things, but is nothing compared to a live situation ...

I agree with Mezzo. It depends for me on what I'm singing - some things are much better with a professional quality backing track rather than a piano reduction - but I'm always happiest with a live band or orchestra - you get so much more interplay with the musicians.

I'm not much of a singer but live accompaniment would always be my preference. CDs are better than nothing, and sometimes you can get accompaniment on CD that you may not have access to "live", but I've yet to come across a CD that's better than a real life appropriate-for-the-job accompanist*, whatever form that accompanist takes.




* with the notable exception of the HOM at my secondary school, who considered it the soloist's job to stay with the pianist, not the other way round (she might as well have been a CD to be honest...), but assuming we're talking about an accompanist who can accompany then it's a no brainer for me!

Harpsichord, or theorbo ....

Okay, but if this really means live or canned, then live every time. I've had a fair few experiences, Rolls Royce sorts of accompaniment, adjusting to my foul-ups seamlessly, keying in to the way I think and play and that magic interaction which just makes the music go zoom, right through to the stumble and trip, oops, need to start again, how does this bit go, oh cripes, it's me accompanying them rather than the other way round....and I'd go for live even then, because it's a human interaction, in a way which canned music just cannot be.

Nothing compares to a live accompaniment - a good musician will enhance your performance as a singer, by sympathetically following you and working together. A backing track can make no adjustments in "real time".

Purely as a listener, I'd definitely choose piano if it's between that and a CD! I just think it complements the singer much more

i love singing along with piano and drums, they give it a beat

A good, sensitive and friendly real live accompanist is the best by far. (We have a wonderful tame one on hand for our Welsh forum events.) but the new smart CD backing tracks can be very useful. These are ones that you play through the computer and you can alter the tempi etc to suit yourself.

I agree entirely.

So do I

By this "sympathetically following you and working together" you mean covering up your mistakes - no?
(just kidding )

Believe it or not - sometimes the singers even cover up the accompanists' mistakes - own experience

My experience too!

I have also been known to "sing over" a few interesting notes in the accompaniment, to get it back on track! In general, however, the vast majority of people who accompany singers are super musicians who add to the performance. (Which does mean covering our occasional wobbles - Maledictis was right)

Depends what I'm singing.

If I'm singing classical pieces I prefer a piano, if I'm singing Pop stuff (like for my rockschool exam) I prefer backing tracks.

I hate singing to backing tracks - I feel that it's much less emotive and expressive because it's pre-recorded...I love how the singer and the accompanist react to each other during a performance, and it just seems more 'real' and expressive to me, eg: you can't do rubato etc with a backing track!

yeah.....

But when your accompianist doesn't follow you? like just plays anyway how they like. i hate that.
especially when the dont ask YOU what speed youre singing at.
boo.

Then you've probably got a poor excuse for an accompanist, alas.

Or when you end up singing a service that the hastily-drafted-in and very underconfident organ scholar is sight-reading, so you decide that when they slow down a bit, you'd better follow them, and then they try to follow you, and after about fifteen bars the conductor decides to start waving their arms in yet another tempo and half the chapel choir are in fits of giggles and almost no-one can sing anything...
(I think that was the last time I ever did a solo with that choir, thankfully!)

I know It's just that I am a pro accompanist playing mainly for amateur singers, so it's generally me who does the "covering up" as it were.

I like this sentence - this sentence should appear on the forums more often

thought you might!

Sounds like my head of music at school many moons ago! She was not a bad pianist, but an incredibly poor accompanist.

That's quite a common problem I would say. There are a lot of brilliant pianists out there - the air gets remarkably thinner though if your are looking for a good accompanist. Some pianists who accompany (I wouldn't call them accompanists) are more inclined to do their own thing and interpret the piece like a piano solo instead of interacting with the singer.

Good accompanying is a discipline on its own, and if you find someone who is really able to interact with the soloist (and also to step back where necessary!), hold onto them - they are not easy to find ...

Hmm yes that's is very true...although luckily I've never had that problem!!

Also, I always find that, in school concerts etc, people are using backing tracks and then the CD goes all wrong and jumps!! I don't think we have a rubbish CD player either!!