WEBVTT 00:00:26.919 --> 00:00:50.500 That was very... Danny, it's great to have you 00:00:50.500 --> 00:00:53.700 on the podcast today. Hi, lovely to be here. 00:00:53.840 --> 00:00:57.009 Thank you. You're very welcome. Why don't we 00:00:57.009 --> 00:00:59.630 kick off by talking about your Variations series 00:00:59.630 --> 00:01:02.929 at the Wigmore Hall? I believe it's five concerts 00:01:02.929 --> 00:01:06.629 in total, isn't it? It's five recitals over two 00:01:06.629 --> 00:01:11.329 seasons, so it's a real marathon. And it's bookended 00:01:11.329 --> 00:01:15.489 by two really monumental pieces in the genre. 00:01:15.609 --> 00:01:18.329 We started with the Goldberg Variations in November 00:01:18.329 --> 00:01:21.409 last year, and we're going to finish with the 00:01:21.409 --> 00:01:24.549 Diabelli Variations by Beethoven towards the 00:01:24.549 --> 00:01:30.379 end of the... 27th 20 26 27 season um and uh 00:01:30.379 --> 00:01:34.799 yeah in between those major bookends i'm taking 00:01:34.799 --> 00:01:36.819 the audience along a bit of a journey and traversing 00:01:36.819 --> 00:01:39.939 a whole range of smaller and bigger sets of variations 00:01:39.939 --> 00:01:44.799 some very well known some undeservedly forgotten 00:01:44.799 --> 00:01:48.019 in my view and also some contemporary things 00:01:48.019 --> 00:01:51.939 that are very very new and even some anti -variations 00:01:51.939 --> 00:01:53.480 if that makes sense i'll tell you a bit about 00:01:53.480 --> 00:01:56.379 that oh yes well why don't you talk us through 00:01:56.379 --> 00:01:58.620 the concerts like what the recitals i'm coming 00:01:58.620 --> 00:02:00.680 to the next one i missed your goldberg variations 00:02:00.680 --> 00:02:03.140 but on the 15th of february you're playing one 00:02:03.140 --> 00:02:06.260 of my favorite sets of variations schumann's 00:02:06.260 --> 00:02:11.539 symphonic etudes yes i adore those pieces um 00:02:11.539 --> 00:02:14.120 and i've been playing them a very long time i 00:02:14.120 --> 00:02:16.560 i learned them um when i was still at college 00:02:16.560 --> 00:02:19.060 actually and um so they've accompanied me throughout 00:02:19.060 --> 00:02:22.460 my my career and it felt completely appropriate 00:02:22.460 --> 00:02:24.240 and essential in a way that i should include 00:02:24.240 --> 00:02:28.699 them and i have also in that program brought 00:02:28.699 --> 00:02:30.819 them together with a piece that was inspired 00:02:30.819 --> 00:02:34.240 directly by them um by another composer i adore 00:02:34.240 --> 00:02:39.530 gabrielle foray who uh despite being um a church 00:02:39.530 --> 00:02:41.990 organist and trained in church music never wrote 00:02:41.990 --> 00:02:44.370 anything for solo organ to my knowledge but he 00:02:44.370 --> 00:02:47.090 really wrote fantastic solo piano music that 00:02:47.090 --> 00:02:51.509 still somehow is not um as appreciated and as 00:02:51.509 --> 00:02:53.330 loved as i think it might be and certainly not 00:02:53.330 --> 00:02:56.330 played as much as it might be and his c sharp 00:02:56.330 --> 00:03:02.129 minor variations are directly inspired and modeled 00:03:02.129 --> 00:03:06.090 on schumann's etude symphonique same key same 00:03:06.090 --> 00:03:09.030 number of variations kind of it depends what 00:03:09.030 --> 00:03:10.830 version of the Schumann you play and what you 00:03:10.830 --> 00:03:13.669 believe and don't believe but there are it's 00:03:13.669 --> 00:03:16.370 it's a theme with 11 variations uh and there's 00:03:16.370 --> 00:03:18.629 even a you know in variation 10 there's even 00:03:18.629 --> 00:03:21.469 a direct quote of the of the theme of the Schumann 00:03:21.469 --> 00:03:23.389 which of course isn't by Schumann so it's like 00:03:23.389 --> 00:03:26.750 a you know it's a bit of a maze that's amazing 00:03:26.750 --> 00:03:30.949 I mean wow ah I honestly didn't know that but 00:03:30.949 --> 00:03:35.520 for example with the Schumann I find there are 00:03:35.520 --> 00:03:38.099 counts of people who love them or those that 00:03:38.099 --> 00:03:41.680 don't or those that don't get them. Maybe you 00:03:41.680 --> 00:03:45.360 can... What do you think here? I think with Schumann's 00:03:45.360 --> 00:03:49.819 Etude Symphonique, there's kind of a tussle between 00:03:49.819 --> 00:03:51.800 two things. There's Schumann that kind of... 00:03:51.979 --> 00:03:54.699 romantic spirit you know who adores the romantic 00:03:54.699 --> 00:03:58.759 literature and is so loved for his free -flowing 00:03:58.759 --> 00:04:01.060 ideas and romantic sweep but then also you have 00:04:01.060 --> 00:04:04.300 variation form he's given a theme not by him 00:04:04.300 --> 00:04:06.319 of course it was a theme that was given to him 00:04:06.319 --> 00:04:09.180 by the father of his fiancee at the time ernestine 00:04:09.180 --> 00:04:13.979 this was pre -clara days. And the theme is a 00:04:13.979 --> 00:04:16.779 very beautiful theme, but it's quite square in 00:04:16.779 --> 00:04:20.420 a way. It's the right number of bars for a classical 00:04:20.420 --> 00:04:22.980 theme. And Schumann embarks on a set of variations 00:04:22.980 --> 00:04:25.560 that essentially preserve that structure. So 00:04:25.560 --> 00:04:28.259 what does a composer do then if he's kind of 00:04:28.259 --> 00:04:33.699 beset by this great romantic freedom? um and 00:04:33.699 --> 00:04:36.399 spirit and yet having to work within a constrained 00:04:36.399 --> 00:04:38.740 form and that tussle i think what's fascinating 00:04:38.740 --> 00:04:41.480 for me i think if one makes them too boxy so 00:04:41.480 --> 00:04:44.540 to speak and too classical it becomes a little 00:04:44.540 --> 00:04:47.740 bit variation after variation and i i'm guessing 00:04:47.740 --> 00:04:50.540 that those who don't warm to them quite so much 00:04:50.540 --> 00:04:53.959 might um be feeling that way because of that 00:04:53.959 --> 00:04:58.240 um so i try very much to make those variations 00:04:58.240 --> 00:05:01.439 into into a much larger structure like an arc 00:05:01.439 --> 00:05:04.540 a musical arc that sort of in a way transcends 00:05:04.540 --> 00:05:07.720 the the granular detail of each variation while 00:05:07.720 --> 00:05:10.259 obviously preserving the the essential qualities 00:05:10.259 --> 00:05:13.389 of each and there are so many interesting aspects 00:05:13.389 --> 00:05:16.790 to that set of variations i mean the way he imposes 00:05:16.790 --> 00:05:19.170 the the orchestra on the piano for instance the 00:05:19.170 --> 00:05:21.149 the symphonic proportions i mean they really 00:05:21.149 --> 00:05:24.829 are symphonic both in their in their grandeur 00:05:24.829 --> 00:05:26.449 and length but also the kind of textures that 00:05:26.449 --> 00:05:29.149 he writes you can just imagine orchestrating 00:05:29.149 --> 00:05:31.350 some of them um straight away because there are 00:05:31.350 --> 00:05:35.170 so many layers um going on within the piano um 00:05:35.170 --> 00:05:38.709 and also there's there's a great um harking back 00:05:38.709 --> 00:05:42.050 to the baroque interestingly um i think in these 00:05:42.050 --> 00:05:44.029 pieces that there are there are some you know 00:05:44.029 --> 00:05:46.029 there's one that sounds like a slow stately french 00:05:46.029 --> 00:05:51.290 overture for example um and in the finale i can't 00:05:51.290 --> 00:05:55.589 help thinking that he is alluding to or quoting 00:05:55.589 --> 00:05:57.829 maybe he didn't know the piece maybe he did did 00:05:57.829 --> 00:06:00.069 he hear it did he not i'm not sure but the christmas 00:06:00.069 --> 00:06:02.529 oratorio the quartet that sort of precedes the 00:06:02.529 --> 00:06:07.360 the final number is almost exactly what happens 00:06:07.360 --> 00:06:09.420 in the finale. It's funny, there's this bit that 00:06:09.420 --> 00:06:11.759 comes back again and again, and we know he was 00:06:11.759 --> 00:06:14.819 a great admirer of Bach, but yet he kind of pays 00:06:14.819 --> 00:06:16.860 this homage, if indeed it is a homage, in a very 00:06:16.860 --> 00:06:21.560 personal, romantic way. So I don't know, there's 00:06:21.560 --> 00:06:23.819 a lot in them. I think there's something about 00:06:23.819 --> 00:06:25.839 that finale that puts people off, because it's 00:06:25.839 --> 00:06:29.160 quite bombastic. It reminds me slightly of the 00:06:29.160 --> 00:06:33.310 middle movement of the Schumann fantasy. Yeah, 00:06:33.470 --> 00:06:37.569 it's got this potentially like a sort of march 00:06:37.569 --> 00:06:42.029 -like formality, all this the choric rhythm that 00:06:42.029 --> 00:06:44.089 goes through. I mean, I think that generates 00:06:44.089 --> 00:06:48.430 a lot of excitement. I think to harp on that 00:06:48.430 --> 00:06:51.629 as too much in the foreground is probably ill 00:06:51.629 --> 00:06:54.769 -advised because then it just becomes potentially 00:06:54.769 --> 00:06:57.069 repetitious and just too much of a good thing. 00:06:57.149 --> 00:06:59.449 But it's actually, it's an undercurrent. It's 00:06:59.449 --> 00:07:02.620 more... you know the the theme of the finale 00:07:02.620 --> 00:07:05.199 is actually not the theme of the variations at 00:07:05.199 --> 00:07:07.600 all it comes from a contemporary opera by marshner 00:07:07.600 --> 00:07:10.639 um another reason why i love this uh this this 00:07:10.639 --> 00:07:13.920 piece you know um it's uh it's uh from his opera 00:07:13.920 --> 00:07:18.680 i think Ivanhoe and the text to this variation 00:07:18.680 --> 00:07:22.100 to this theme is Du stolzes England freuer dich 00:07:22.100 --> 00:07:25.540 proud England rejoice which kind of has interesting 00:07:25.540 --> 00:07:29.939 varied resonances these days but it's a completely 00:07:29.939 --> 00:07:33.240 different material and it's got some you know 00:07:33.240 --> 00:07:36.399 light -hearted you know joyous aspect and so 00:07:36.399 --> 00:07:38.660 I think it shouldn't be formal and pompous I 00:07:38.660 --> 00:07:41.329 think it should be Like a party, basically. And 00:07:41.329 --> 00:07:44.449 the theme on which the variations are built, 00:07:44.569 --> 00:07:48.110 the Baron Fricken von Asch theme that opens the 00:07:48.110 --> 00:07:50.889 work, appears in this Bachian guise throughout. 00:07:51.050 --> 00:07:54.610 So actually, I don't know, it shouldn't sound 00:07:54.610 --> 00:07:56.430 repetitive at all. It should sound fresh. And 00:07:56.430 --> 00:07:58.829 it's a new thing. It's a new idea that incorporates 00:07:58.829 --> 00:08:01.069 and rounds off everything that has been explored 00:08:01.069 --> 00:08:05.449 so far. Very interesting. And then you say foray. 00:08:06.800 --> 00:08:10.079 modelled his on Schumann's, which I honestly 00:08:10.079 --> 00:08:14.339 didn't know. What does Foyer do? Well, Foyer's 00:08:14.339 --> 00:08:17.100 theme is original. And it's interesting because 00:08:17.100 --> 00:08:21.579 his theme is quite formal and straight. And he 00:08:21.579 --> 00:08:24.399 even told his student, I think he told Marguerite 00:08:24.399 --> 00:08:28.379 Long that she should play it like an etude, not 00:08:28.379 --> 00:08:32.820 too much feeling, just do it. Just a theme. Don't 00:08:32.820 --> 00:08:36.799 do too much with it. Interesting what he and 00:08:36.799 --> 00:08:40.419 he again also maintains the structure very closely. 00:08:41.120 --> 00:08:44.340 And I suppose when you think about the relationship 00:08:44.340 --> 00:08:48.639 with Schumann, he also varies it with a great 00:08:48.639 --> 00:08:52.600 eye and ear for counterpoint. So there is this 00:08:52.600 --> 00:08:57.759 kind of Bachian church musical contrapuntal heritage. 00:08:57.860 --> 00:09:00.139 You know, he was trained in the Niedermayer school. 00:09:00.320 --> 00:09:02.759 And I think that's sort of you can you can feel 00:09:02.759 --> 00:09:06.309 that. And in the orchestration, he really uses 00:09:06.309 --> 00:09:08.429 the full range of the piano, all the registers. 00:09:08.509 --> 00:09:11.190 He uses the top registers, he uses the deep bass. 00:09:12.210 --> 00:09:18.809 And again, the demands are severe. The technical 00:09:18.809 --> 00:09:20.809 demands are quite severe. But musically, again, 00:09:20.889 --> 00:09:24.370 the challenge with this is to make it into something 00:09:24.370 --> 00:09:28.110 that transcends the sort of solidity of variation 00:09:28.110 --> 00:09:31.590 by variation. I often think with variations that 00:09:31.590 --> 00:09:34.029 it's very clever. You kind of get a real insight 00:09:34.029 --> 00:09:37.210 into a composer's creative mind and how they 00:09:37.210 --> 00:09:39.269 are going to vary this material that is often 00:09:39.269 --> 00:09:44.190 essentially quite simple. But it's not just about 00:09:44.190 --> 00:09:46.389 what am I going to do next? These variations 00:09:46.389 --> 00:09:49.990 have to sit in some kind of journey, in some 00:09:49.990 --> 00:09:52.529 kind of narrative or in some kind of explorative 00:09:52.529 --> 00:09:57.200 state. gets you around them in a in an aesthetically 00:09:57.200 --> 00:10:00.820 very satisfying way so i think in that respect 00:10:00.820 --> 00:10:02.840 they're both quite similar and of course but 00:10:02.840 --> 00:10:05.779 stylistically they're very different yes of course 00:10:05.779 --> 00:10:08.460 i mean i've always shied away from variations 00:10:08.460 --> 00:10:11.620 i don't know what it is it's kind of like maybe 00:10:11.620 --> 00:10:14.000 it's frightening to have a whole load of variations 00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:16.320 as you said you've got to make them all come 00:10:16.320 --> 00:10:20.100 together um and it's the same material of course 00:10:20.100 --> 00:10:23.240 embellished and changed and whatever but you 00:10:23.240 --> 00:10:26.519 know you've obviously got deep fascination with 00:10:26.519 --> 00:10:28.679 them and as you said you can really understand 00:10:28.679 --> 00:10:34.799 the composer more with variations? Yeah I think 00:10:34.799 --> 00:10:37.740 it's one aspect and it's interesting because 00:10:37.740 --> 00:10:40.000 I talk to a lot of people about variations and 00:10:40.000 --> 00:10:41.340 some people love them and some composers say 00:10:41.340 --> 00:10:45.159 I don't write variations, I don't like writing 00:10:45.159 --> 00:10:47.940 them. I once wrote a few but I don't do that 00:10:47.940 --> 00:10:55.539 anymore. The thing is, the starting point, I 00:10:55.539 --> 00:10:58.639 suppose, was with works like the Goldberg and 00:10:58.639 --> 00:11:01.419 the Diabelli variations and the Etude Symphonique. 00:11:01.539 --> 00:11:04.899 And actually with the piece that forms the centrepiece 00:11:04.899 --> 00:11:07.220 of the third programme, which is Mettner's Improvisation 00:11:07.220 --> 00:11:10.039 No. 2, which is a phenomenal set of variations, 00:11:10.120 --> 00:11:13.879 but it's kind of twisted into the fabric of an 00:11:13.879 --> 00:11:17.200 improvisation and a kind of prolonged fairy tale 00:11:17.200 --> 00:11:19.580 legend about the Song of the Water Nymph at the 00:11:19.580 --> 00:11:22.330 same time. So it's kind of like a multi... genre 00:11:22.330 --> 00:11:26.250 piece in a way and i suppose major masterpieces 00:11:26.250 --> 00:11:30.509 such as those kind of really were crying out 00:11:30.509 --> 00:11:33.289 for for some kind of trajectory that that kind 00:11:33.289 --> 00:11:35.190 of takes them well and personally artistically 00:11:35.190 --> 00:11:37.429 for me as well because they're works that i adore 00:11:37.429 --> 00:11:41.169 and i um i'm really sort of still itching to 00:11:41.169 --> 00:11:43.929 play i'm enjoying playing them and i i will do 00:11:43.929 --> 00:11:47.090 i think for many years to come i mean your repertoire 00:11:47.090 --> 00:11:50.750 is absolutely varied i mean as you say in all 00:11:50.750 --> 00:11:54.889 these programs, you've got the well -known and 00:11:54.889 --> 00:11:58.450 the more obscure, which is wonderful. So have 00:11:58.450 --> 00:12:00.909 you always had a fascination? I mean, and I'm 00:12:00.909 --> 00:12:02.870 looking at your discography as well. I mean, 00:12:02.889 --> 00:12:07.350 all types of composers. So you're obviously not 00:12:07.350 --> 00:12:10.549 just a Beethoven, Bach and Brahms kind of guy. 00:12:10.649 --> 00:12:14.049 You like to discover the more off the beaten 00:12:14.049 --> 00:12:17.720 track repertoire. I do. I do like some variety. 00:12:17.840 --> 00:12:19.860 I mean, first of all, I must say, I don't have 00:12:19.860 --> 00:12:21.820 any problem with playing Bach and Beethoven. 00:12:22.240 --> 00:12:24.360 And later you're probably going to ask me what 00:12:24.360 --> 00:12:27.639 composer would I play if I only had one choice. 00:12:28.139 --> 00:12:31.419 And I, you know, well, I won't spoil it now. 00:12:32.490 --> 00:12:34.870 But it won't be necessarily someone very obscure. 00:12:35.610 --> 00:12:39.950 But at the same time, there are pieces of music 00:12:39.950 --> 00:12:43.269 that have been forgotten about. We've got pianists, 00:12:43.289 --> 00:12:45.549 we're very lucky. We've got such a huge repertoire, 00:12:45.649 --> 00:12:47.210 such a rich repertoire. And it's inevitable, 00:12:47.309 --> 00:12:50.370 I think, that, you know, I mean, I'm never going 00:12:50.370 --> 00:12:53.250 to get through everything. No one is. And some 00:12:53.250 --> 00:12:56.070 things do get left behind. So I am interested 00:12:56.070 --> 00:12:57.570 in that. And I'm also interested very much in 00:12:57.570 --> 00:13:00.610 the music that's being written now. So a lot 00:13:00.610 --> 00:13:04.399 of my programs actually, have been juxtapositions 00:13:04.399 --> 00:13:08.159 of kind of wonderful mainstream things that people 00:13:08.159 --> 00:13:11.639 love or that people have heard about and will 00:13:11.639 --> 00:13:15.399 come and hear, but also alongside those new things 00:13:15.399 --> 00:13:17.919 that nobody knows and that are emerging now, 00:13:18.059 --> 00:13:21.470 that have been written quite recently. I mean, 00:13:21.470 --> 00:13:23.870 the fourth program is an example of that. So 00:13:23.870 --> 00:13:27.210 that's really the variations. There are more 00:13:27.210 --> 00:13:29.909 variations on an idea. So Pictures at an Exhibition 00:13:29.909 --> 00:13:33.190 and Debussy's Image is all about pictures. And 00:13:33.190 --> 00:13:36.690 Pictures at an Exhibition has a set of variations 00:13:36.690 --> 00:13:38.809 running through it very quietly. You know, the 00:13:38.809 --> 00:13:42.070 promenade gets varied very, very subtly, registrally 00:13:42.070 --> 00:13:44.730 and orchestrally as we go on throughout and kind 00:13:44.730 --> 00:13:49.330 of reacts to some of the... the paintings that 00:13:49.330 --> 00:13:51.669 you see along the way. So as you walk through 00:13:51.669 --> 00:13:54.590 that exhibition, metaphorically speaking, your 00:13:54.590 --> 00:13:58.350 way of promenading is varied according to what 00:13:58.350 --> 00:14:00.389 you've just experienced or what you might be 00:14:00.389 --> 00:14:02.710 thinking will be around the corner or things 00:14:02.710 --> 00:14:05.590 like that. But because we're dealing with images, 00:14:05.730 --> 00:14:08.250 pictures, paintings, portraits, I've chosen some 00:14:08.250 --> 00:14:11.169 of Amy Williams's piano portraits. Amy Williams, 00:14:11.230 --> 00:14:15.419 who's an American composer, is fantastic. She's 00:14:15.419 --> 00:14:17.679 a wonderful pianist herself, knows the instrument. 00:14:18.220 --> 00:14:23.299 And a sort of 21st century answer to Mussorgsky 00:14:23.299 --> 00:14:25.539 in a way from Thea Musgrave with her snapshots, 00:14:25.600 --> 00:14:28.879 not paintings at an exhibition, but photographs. 00:14:29.840 --> 00:14:32.960 And photographs, I think that can be, I'm still 00:14:32.960 --> 00:14:34.899 studying them, but I think that can be arranged 00:14:34.899 --> 00:14:38.539 in different orders. So there's a nice kind of 00:14:38.539 --> 00:14:43.200 curatorial input from the performer. as well 00:14:43.200 --> 00:14:46.899 as you know actually playing the music yes interesting 00:14:46.899 --> 00:14:49.019 oh well i don't know amy williams so i'll have 00:14:49.019 --> 00:14:53.120 to have you met her have i met her that's a good 00:14:53.120 --> 00:14:54.600 question i've been in touch with i've spoken 00:14:54.600 --> 00:14:58.259 have i met her yes i have yes i have sorry this 00:14:58.259 --> 00:15:01.259 is embarrassing yes i have i met her in new york 00:15:01.259 --> 00:15:04.580 sorry there you go it's on the record yes did 00:15:04.580 --> 00:15:07.500 you sit down with the score together No, actually, 00:15:07.600 --> 00:15:10.240 I was there. I went to hear a performance of 00:15:10.240 --> 00:15:13.960 a piece of hers for soprano and string quartet 00:15:13.960 --> 00:15:17.100 that the Jack Quartet were doing at a new music 00:15:17.100 --> 00:15:20.240 festival in New York called Timespans. And I 00:15:20.240 --> 00:15:24.200 think it was a setting of something called the 00:15:24.200 --> 00:15:30.259 Ur -Sonata by Kurt Schwitters, who wrote a solo 00:15:30.259 --> 00:15:34.139 sonata for a speaker entirely in nonsense syllables. 00:15:34.889 --> 00:15:38.149 with carefully notated timings and vowels and 00:15:38.149 --> 00:15:41.309 consonants. And it lasts quite a long time. Anyway, 00:15:41.330 --> 00:15:44.190 this piece, I think, was a musical setting of 00:15:44.190 --> 00:15:51.029 that. Crazy stuff, really. It got my brain turning 00:15:51.029 --> 00:15:54.389 a little bit. But that was the occasion that 00:15:54.389 --> 00:15:59.429 I met her. Okay. Interesting. And as you go on, 00:15:59.429 --> 00:16:02.929 I mean, your last recital will... feature the 00:16:02.929 --> 00:16:05.470 dear bellies beethoven dear belly variations 00:16:05.470 --> 00:16:10.350 but that's not till spring 2027. it is yeah that's 00:16:10.350 --> 00:16:14.250 right goodness it's amazing you plan it so far 00:16:14.250 --> 00:16:16.090 in advance but you have to don't you with the 00:16:16.090 --> 00:16:20.169 with the big you know concert halls yeah i think 00:16:20.169 --> 00:16:22.269 so i think so and also just for a cycle like 00:16:22.269 --> 00:16:24.529 this to see one's way through it it's not something 00:16:24.529 --> 00:16:26.309 that can be put together piecemeal as you go 00:16:26.309 --> 00:16:28.610 along i think i think it's got to be there's 00:16:28.610 --> 00:16:31.909 got to be a vision um if nothing else so that 00:16:33.230 --> 00:16:36.809 one can achieve a good balance of works across 00:16:36.809 --> 00:16:39.610 the series and bring people with you in the series, 00:16:39.690 --> 00:16:42.509 as it is a series. I mean, hopefully people who 00:16:42.509 --> 00:16:44.009 come to the first one will keep coming back. 00:16:44.070 --> 00:16:46.909 So there's a continuity to it. And I quite like 00:16:46.909 --> 00:16:50.370 the idea of exploring this amount of repertoire 00:16:50.370 --> 00:16:52.389 together with a particular audience. And I think 00:16:52.389 --> 00:16:54.090 that's a good thing. That's fantastic. Would 00:16:54.090 --> 00:16:57.789 you like to take the series elsewhere? Maybe 00:16:57.789 --> 00:17:01.940 Carnegie Hall? I'd be happy to take the series 00:17:01.940 --> 00:17:04.779 elsewhere. I've been obviously playing the isolated 00:17:04.779 --> 00:17:08.059 programs in other places as we go along. I'm 00:17:08.059 --> 00:17:11.160 not doing the series of five anywhere else at 00:17:11.160 --> 00:17:14.970 the moment. very much very much open to it um 00:17:14.970 --> 00:17:17.690 yes a lot of work um it's very much open to it 00:17:17.690 --> 00:17:22.250 i'm sure and when it comes to the recording so 00:17:22.250 --> 00:17:25.630 far i i think i gather you've done the goldberg 00:17:25.630 --> 00:17:28.970 variations on the onyx label that was in september 00:17:28.970 --> 00:17:32.730 last year that's right um anything in the pipeline 00:17:32.730 --> 00:17:35.430 for the future with these variations well yeah 00:17:35.430 --> 00:17:38.890 the um there's going to be a release of the schumann 00:17:38.890 --> 00:17:42.160 and the foray This coming September, also on 00:17:42.160 --> 00:17:45.259 Onyx. That's the plan. Wonderful. Wonderful. 00:17:46.220 --> 00:17:50.400 And at some point, there'll be some more Ligeti 00:17:50.400 --> 00:17:53.339 with Hyperion, but I'm not quite sure when it 00:17:53.339 --> 00:17:55.180 will emerge yet. And there are still some things 00:17:55.180 --> 00:17:59.660 to do with it. Ligeti's fabulous. Ligeti continues 00:17:59.660 --> 00:18:04.259 to pleasantly haunt my schedule. Really? Yes, 00:18:04.299 --> 00:18:06.880 absolutely. What is it about Ligeti? What is 00:18:06.880 --> 00:18:11.009 it about Ligeti for you? That's a great question. 00:18:12.650 --> 00:18:15.069 I sort of became a bit addicted to his music, 00:18:15.170 --> 00:18:20.130 I think. I became addicted to the ideas, to the 00:18:20.130 --> 00:18:25.549 striking originality of the sound and to really 00:18:25.549 --> 00:18:30.869 the way he was inspired by so many musical and 00:18:30.869 --> 00:18:34.470 extra -musical ideas and how he, more than that, 00:18:34.509 --> 00:18:37.529 how he brought those ideas together and fashioned 00:18:37.529 --> 00:18:41.940 music. coming from those places that really in 00:18:41.940 --> 00:18:43.980 an era where so many composers had done so many 00:18:43.980 --> 00:18:48.019 things to shock, he managed to bring this all 00:18:48.019 --> 00:18:52.059 together and to fashion something striking the 00:18:52.059 --> 00:18:54.839 original that wasn't requiring kind of extended 00:18:54.839 --> 00:18:58.960 techniques, prepared pianos, conceptual things, 00:18:59.180 --> 00:19:01.839 you know, it's just, you know, 10 fingers on 00:19:01.839 --> 00:19:03.980 the keys and the feet on the pedals, more or 00:19:03.980 --> 00:19:07.240 less as usual. tiny tiny exceptions you know 00:19:07.240 --> 00:19:09.099 some blocked keys and things like that that he 00:19:09.099 --> 00:19:13.759 uses but but um other than that um really his 00:19:13.759 --> 00:19:16.980 his late style his answer to the to the as what 00:19:16.980 --> 00:19:18.839 he saw as the dead end of the avant -garde and 00:19:18.839 --> 00:19:22.710 the kind of less appealing directions to him 00:19:22.710 --> 00:19:25.109 anyway of minimalism and of neo -romanticism. 00:19:25.170 --> 00:19:28.769 It's really inspiring. I mean, he was a polymath. 00:19:28.930 --> 00:19:33.569 He had a remarkable life. He was under the Nazis. 00:19:33.650 --> 00:19:35.430 He was under the communists. He had everything 00:19:35.430 --> 00:19:38.289 thrown at him basically and somehow survived 00:19:38.289 --> 00:19:42.410 all that and sort of pulled through. And his 00:19:42.410 --> 00:19:45.130 music has been so influential. There's no composer, 00:19:45.130 --> 00:19:46.890 I think, working these days that hasn't somehow 00:19:46.890 --> 00:19:50.630 been touched by George Ligeti. So for all those 00:19:50.630 --> 00:19:52.109 reasons, I suppose. And then, of course, once 00:19:52.109 --> 00:19:54.549 you've played all the etudes and recorded them 00:19:54.549 --> 00:19:58.730 and done a lot of that, you keep doing it. It 00:19:58.730 --> 00:20:00.990 starts to become more fun when you've done them 00:20:00.990 --> 00:20:06.059 a lot. I bet. I bet. I bet. Yeah, people are 00:20:06.059 --> 00:20:08.180 recording them. You're right. I mean, you obviously, 00:20:08.359 --> 00:20:13.180 but I remember first hearing it was Pierre -Laurent 00:20:13.180 --> 00:20:16.099 Emard who brought them out to the open, really, 00:20:16.279 --> 00:20:19.500 I think. Absolutely. I mean, he worked very closely 00:20:19.500 --> 00:20:23.859 with Ligeti for many years. He was the dedicatee, 00:20:23.859 --> 00:20:25.539 actually, of a couple of the etudes. He gave 00:20:25.539 --> 00:20:29.509 the premieres of quite a few. And Ligeti was 00:20:29.509 --> 00:20:32.950 sort of, I think, actively involved in those 00:20:32.950 --> 00:20:35.190 first recordings and everything else. So, I mean, 00:20:35.269 --> 00:20:38.690 we all owe Pierre Laurent a huge debt, really, 00:20:38.869 --> 00:20:42.069 as the pianist who really brought them out, as 00:20:42.069 --> 00:20:45.309 you say. Yeah. I'm going to turn to something 00:20:45.309 --> 00:20:47.369 else now. I know you're very, very busy on the 00:20:47.369 --> 00:20:52.170 concert platform, but your role as, well, teacher 00:20:52.170 --> 00:20:55.329 in higher education seems to be equally... as 00:20:55.329 --> 00:20:58.410 important to you. You are Professor of Piano 00:20:58.410 --> 00:21:01.470 and Contemporary Piano at the Royal College of 00:21:01.470 --> 00:21:06.710 Music. That's an interesting title. Yes, I often 00:21:06.710 --> 00:21:10.630 think it shouldn't be necessary in my mind to 00:21:10.630 --> 00:21:13.930 specify that I also deal with contemporary music 00:21:13.930 --> 00:21:18.769 but I think it's probably good that it is that 00:21:18.769 --> 00:21:23.339 way because I think maybe from the outside, sometimes 00:21:23.339 --> 00:21:26.460 the view of conservatory to our life has been, 00:21:26.500 --> 00:21:28.759 hopefully not in the case of the Royal College 00:21:28.759 --> 00:21:32.480 anymore, but has been that the musical material 00:21:32.480 --> 00:21:36.079 that we work with and the way we teach is kind 00:21:36.079 --> 00:21:38.980 of very much in the past. And it is rooted in 00:21:38.980 --> 00:21:42.140 a tradition for sure. But I wouldn't say that 00:21:42.140 --> 00:21:44.619 it's backward looking or sort of conservative. 00:21:44.660 --> 00:21:47.200 And I think that sort of... Because I do play 00:21:47.200 --> 00:21:48.559 a lot of contemporary music and I'm interested 00:21:48.559 --> 00:21:52.599 in it, that sort of speaks to a more forward 00:21:52.599 --> 00:21:55.880 -looking way of thinking about pianists and young 00:21:55.880 --> 00:21:58.039 pianist development. I mean, I think it's very 00:21:58.039 --> 00:22:01.119 important for young pianists to be... So maybe, 00:22:01.259 --> 00:22:03.960 yeah, maybe somebody who is more interested in 00:22:03.960 --> 00:22:06.960 contemporary piano will be happy to have you 00:22:06.960 --> 00:22:10.160 as their professor. Yeah, I think, well, I think, 00:22:10.160 --> 00:22:12.240 you know, if someone wants to play contemporary 00:22:12.240 --> 00:22:14.299 music, it obviously helps to have someone who's 00:22:14.299 --> 00:22:17.079 sort of experienced with it and sympathetic to 00:22:17.079 --> 00:22:20.460 those potential directions. And, you know, I'm 00:22:20.460 --> 00:22:23.339 not a world authority on contemporary piano, 00:22:23.460 --> 00:22:27.680 but I do work at it sort of actively in my career, 00:22:27.819 --> 00:22:31.380 solo -wise, chamber -wise. So, yeah, and I enjoy 00:22:31.380 --> 00:22:34.079 that as well, very much. What would you say is 00:22:34.079 --> 00:22:35.980 your style of teaching, or do you think that's 00:22:35.980 --> 00:22:41.730 a silly question? No, I would never say that 00:22:41.730 --> 00:22:46.529 was a silly question. I've thought about it quite 00:22:46.529 --> 00:22:49.410 a lot. I do try to encapsulate it. So I think 00:22:49.410 --> 00:22:51.609 there are two sides to what I do and I think 00:22:51.609 --> 00:22:53.730 I combine them. I try to combine them very seamlessly 00:22:53.730 --> 00:22:56.869 because they're not really separable. One is 00:22:56.869 --> 00:23:01.930 certainly about trying to find a very free and 00:23:01.930 --> 00:23:06.049 conscious... mechanical approach like a physical 00:23:06.049 --> 00:23:08.170 approach to the piano so but when i say mechanical 00:23:08.170 --> 00:23:10.029 i'm not saying technical because i think technique 00:23:10.029 --> 00:23:12.069 is something a bit different i think i think 00:23:12.069 --> 00:23:14.730 you have mechanics which is you know how you 00:23:14.730 --> 00:23:17.150 move around your joints and how you move efficiently 00:23:17.150 --> 00:23:20.089 and quickly if you need to and all the rest and 00:23:20.089 --> 00:23:22.910 how you use your body well i think technique 00:23:22.910 --> 00:23:26.710 is is kind of the act of using that ability to 00:23:26.710 --> 00:23:30.130 achieve an artistic goal so for me there's no 00:23:30.130 --> 00:23:32.730 such thing as technique as an as a as a thing 00:23:32.730 --> 00:23:35.529 that is separable from from an artistic goal 00:23:35.529 --> 00:23:39.630 so i would say i i work with my students on kind 00:23:39.630 --> 00:23:42.410 of freeing up the mechanics on freeing up the 00:23:42.410 --> 00:23:45.309 physicality of really connecting um physically 00:23:45.309 --> 00:23:47.650 with the instrument which has so many mechanical 00:23:47.650 --> 00:23:50.849 parts as you know um in a really efficient and 00:23:50.849 --> 00:23:54.750 positive way and then at the same time um i'm 00:23:54.750 --> 00:23:57.109 very engaged with interpretation i'm very engaged 00:23:57.109 --> 00:24:01.579 with helping students to try and find their artistic 00:24:01.579 --> 00:24:05.460 vision and sort of opening the door to, well, 00:24:05.519 --> 00:24:07.319 how do we go about finding an artistic vision? 00:24:07.400 --> 00:24:09.019 What's it going to be based on? What do we need 00:24:09.019 --> 00:24:11.200 to, what can we identify in the music and what 00:24:11.200 --> 00:24:12.819 can we think about in order to help us generate 00:24:12.819 --> 00:24:16.700 the artistic vision? And again, I don't, I shy 00:24:16.700 --> 00:24:20.519 away from imposing my own artistic vision on 00:24:20.519 --> 00:24:24.180 anybody because I think that's, you know, it 00:24:24.180 --> 00:24:28.210 can be. It can be helpful to demonstrate it, 00:24:28.250 --> 00:24:29.910 but I think to impose it is always a mistake. 00:24:30.089 --> 00:24:32.470 I'd much rather be helping my students to find 00:24:32.470 --> 00:24:35.410 their way. And if they're truly talented and 00:24:35.410 --> 00:24:37.710 passionate about what they do, that's very much 00:24:37.710 --> 00:24:41.769 a worthwhile enterprise. So we talk about structure, 00:24:41.869 --> 00:24:44.789 we talk about harmony, we sort of analyze things, 00:24:44.849 --> 00:24:47.900 we talk about sort of... the music in its context 00:24:47.900 --> 00:24:52.119 its history we talk about um aesthetics um and 00:24:52.119 --> 00:24:54.579 and all that that those two worlds if you like 00:24:54.579 --> 00:24:57.099 the kind of technical mechanical bit and the 00:24:57.099 --> 00:24:59.819 interpretive bits sound quite disparate but actually 00:24:59.819 --> 00:25:04.000 they become very unified if you consider that 00:25:04.000 --> 00:25:07.119 to make any kind of effective musical gesture 00:25:07.119 --> 00:25:08.819 you need to find a way of embodying the gesture 00:25:08.819 --> 00:25:13.339 i get it yeah so Yeah, it all comes together. 00:25:13.339 --> 00:25:16.579 That's sort of, it's a long answer, but that's 00:25:16.579 --> 00:25:20.000 kind of what I think I do. Okay. You'd have to 00:25:20.000 --> 00:25:22.140 interview my students to find out whether they 00:25:22.140 --> 00:25:24.819 think that's what I do. Well, when you were a 00:25:24.819 --> 00:25:27.940 student, you yourself had some impressive teachers, 00:25:28.259 --> 00:25:31.319 Alexander Kelly, Piers Lane, Irina Zaritskaya, 00:25:31.319 --> 00:25:34.900 and Maria Coriccio, who has always been somebody 00:25:34.900 --> 00:25:43.819 that, a mystery to many. What was she like? Maria 00:25:43.819 --> 00:25:47.319 was extraordinary. I mean, they're all extraordinary 00:25:47.319 --> 00:25:49.460 in their way, but Maria was extraordinary because 00:25:49.460 --> 00:25:55.420 it's like every cell in her body connected with 00:25:55.420 --> 00:25:57.559 the piano somehow. This was someone who had, 00:25:57.839 --> 00:26:01.000 you know, her career very much curtailed by what 00:26:01.000 --> 00:26:03.059 happened to her during the war. And, you know, 00:26:03.099 --> 00:26:05.700 she had been paralyzed. She got tuberculosis. 00:26:05.980 --> 00:26:09.299 She was, you know, she was hiding. Jewish refugees 00:26:09.299 --> 00:26:13.940 in Holland and didn't have enough to eat. And 00:26:13.940 --> 00:26:16.680 she became very ill. So her career really stopped 00:26:16.680 --> 00:26:20.779 before it started. And when she could start to 00:26:20.779 --> 00:26:22.740 play again, she started coaching singers and 00:26:22.740 --> 00:26:24.759 got into teaching. And then the teaching really 00:26:24.759 --> 00:26:28.160 took off and she became absolutely primarily 00:26:28.160 --> 00:26:31.240 a teacher. But her demonstrations were absolutely 00:26:31.240 --> 00:26:38.140 astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. shakes you 00:26:38.140 --> 00:26:40.240 to the core in a way i mean always in in quite 00:26:40.240 --> 00:26:42.779 small chunks you wouldn't sit down and play a 00:26:42.779 --> 00:26:44.299 sonata you know it would be a few bars here and 00:26:44.299 --> 00:26:47.920 a few bars there boy i can still i can that sound 00:26:47.920 --> 00:26:56.200 still reverberates in my mind um and her Neil 00:26:56.200 --> 00:26:58.480 Immelman once described to me, he thought that, 00:26:58.480 --> 00:27:00.720 you know, with her, you kind of learned by osmosis. 00:27:00.819 --> 00:27:04.059 You kind of had to be ready to, you had to be 00:27:04.059 --> 00:27:05.619 interested and ready to receive. I think he was 00:27:05.619 --> 00:27:07.259 right. There was something that, you know, she 00:27:07.259 --> 00:27:10.799 wasn't, she talked about technique, she talked 00:27:10.799 --> 00:27:12.400 about phrasing, she talked about all these things, 00:27:12.420 --> 00:27:15.720 but there was something in the way she was that 00:27:15.720 --> 00:27:20.160 just transcended all those things. And yeah, 00:27:20.200 --> 00:27:22.160 I mean, I didn't study her for a long period. 00:27:22.220 --> 00:27:26.680 It was a year and a half or two. But it made 00:27:26.680 --> 00:27:30.380 a very deep impression on me and helped me really 00:27:30.380 --> 00:27:34.480 to tie together, in a way, all the things that 00:27:34.480 --> 00:27:37.640 I'd learned from my teachers up to that point. 00:27:39.099 --> 00:27:45.019 Okay. Somehow. Okay. Wow. I wish I'd have met 00:27:45.019 --> 00:27:49.519 her or had a few lessons with her. Yeah, she 00:27:49.519 --> 00:27:52.000 was an extraordinary person. There's actually 00:27:52.000 --> 00:27:55.960 a wonderful film made about her. I mean, I thought 00:27:55.960 --> 00:27:57.779 it was wonderful because, of course, it brought 00:27:57.779 --> 00:27:59.720 back so many memories. And I know the person, 00:27:59.779 --> 00:28:01.380 you know, she's no longer alive. So it kind of 00:28:01.380 --> 00:28:04.299 is nostalgic for me. But I think it may be a 00:28:04.299 --> 00:28:07.180 BBC film. I'm not sure. But I came across it 00:28:07.180 --> 00:28:10.299 on YouTube the other day. And it's there. And 00:28:10.299 --> 00:28:12.680 she's talking about things and teaching a couple 00:28:12.680 --> 00:28:17.269 of students. Eric Lesage I think is there playing 00:28:17.269 --> 00:28:21.549 and um I can't remember who else but yeah it's 00:28:21.549 --> 00:28:23.750 um for those interested in Maria Corcho it might 00:28:23.750 --> 00:28:27.890 be a nice thing to spend a bit of time I'll try 00:28:27.890 --> 00:28:31.650 and check that out um you are married to a conductor 00:28:31.650 --> 00:28:34.690 are you uh the American conductor Rebecca Miller 00:28:34.690 --> 00:28:37.309 I am what's it like did you meet at the Royal 00:28:37.309 --> 00:28:39.769 College of Music we did not we met at the Aspen 00:28:39.769 --> 00:28:46.580 Music Festival Colorado up in the mountains lovely 00:28:46.580 --> 00:28:53.119 long time ago it was quite a long time ago when 00:28:53.119 --> 00:28:57.039 you were a student yeah that's right yeah yeah 00:28:57.039 --> 00:29:00.859 we were quite young oh well Aspen sounds amazing 00:29:00.859 --> 00:29:03.140 actually I've never been but it sounds like a 00:29:03.140 --> 00:29:06.539 fantastic festival I haven't been for many years 00:29:06.539 --> 00:29:11.160 it's a very very beautiful place And the festival 00:29:11.160 --> 00:29:13.400 is still going strong. I've had some of my own 00:29:13.400 --> 00:29:19.440 students now going to experience it. Yeah. Actually, 00:29:20.059 --> 00:29:21.900 some of the people who were teaching there when 00:29:21.900 --> 00:29:25.619 I was there are still there teaching. Yes. Well, 00:29:25.819 --> 00:29:28.619 I mean, why would you stop? It's a beautiful 00:29:28.619 --> 00:29:30.920 place. The weather is good. The air is fantastic. 00:29:31.220 --> 00:29:33.539 There's music all around. And it's a nice summer. 00:29:34.160 --> 00:29:36.519 It's a nice place to spend the summer. Wonderful, 00:29:36.579 --> 00:29:40.640 wonderful. Have you played with... Rebecca, have 00:29:40.640 --> 00:29:43.779 you performed with them? Yes, we have. There 00:29:43.779 --> 00:29:46.859 was a time when we would probably get together 00:29:46.859 --> 00:29:50.319 once a year or once every 18 months to do a concerto 00:29:50.319 --> 00:29:55.160 together. So we did do something. We worked together 00:29:55.160 --> 00:29:59.960 in London with the OAE once, I remember. We recorded 00:29:59.960 --> 00:30:03.119 the concertos of Amy Beach and Dorothy Howell 00:30:03.119 --> 00:30:06.500 and Cécile Chaminade's Concert Stuck for Hyperion 00:30:06.500 --> 00:30:11.210 in 2015. Oh, OK. which was a lovely experience. 00:30:11.569 --> 00:30:13.670 It's a record I think we're both quite proud 00:30:13.670 --> 00:30:17.990 of. Yes, it happens occasionally. We've done 00:30:17.990 --> 00:30:21.210 some work together in Sweden. Yeah, we do play 00:30:21.210 --> 00:30:23.410 together. We get on well on stage, I would say. 00:30:24.009 --> 00:30:27.029 How wonderful. That's fantastic. And you have 00:30:27.029 --> 00:30:30.230 children? We do. We have two children, yeah. 00:30:30.329 --> 00:30:33.529 Are they musical? Absolutely, yes, as you might 00:30:33.529 --> 00:30:36.630 expect. So it's important for them. You want 00:30:36.630 --> 00:30:40.400 them to study music. Yeah, we have no designs 00:30:40.400 --> 00:30:44.940 on careers or anything like that. But I think 00:30:44.940 --> 00:30:48.819 we're both very conscious of the joy and the 00:30:48.819 --> 00:30:51.380 benefits that studying music can bring. So why 00:30:51.380 --> 00:30:53.660 would we not encourage that in our children? 00:30:54.599 --> 00:30:57.119 Absolutely, absolutely. Well, actually, I can't 00:30:57.119 --> 00:30:59.500 believe time is flying. So we're getting towards 00:30:59.500 --> 00:31:02.779 the end. So what I would like to do now is pose 00:31:02.779 --> 00:31:06.380 some lighthearted questions to you. And if you 00:31:06.380 --> 00:31:09.839 could just answer me, you know. I'll do my best. 00:31:09.980 --> 00:31:14.240 Yeah. Go for it. Okay. So if you could play only 00:31:14.240 --> 00:31:17.339 one composer from now on, who would it be? I've 00:31:17.339 --> 00:31:19.660 thought about this a lot. And, you know, this 00:31:19.660 --> 00:31:21.599 is, you're talking to someone who hates, you 00:31:21.599 --> 00:31:23.019 know, who's your favourite composer questions. 00:31:23.380 --> 00:31:27.440 Yeah. It would have to be Bach, I think. It would 00:31:27.440 --> 00:31:30.500 just, there's kind of a limitless joy in playing 00:31:30.500 --> 00:31:32.200 that music. And there are lots of composers that 00:31:32.200 --> 00:31:35.000 I would absolutely be devastated to let go of. 00:31:35.609 --> 00:31:37.130 he's probably the one if i had to choose one 00:31:37.130 --> 00:31:40.069 above all others it all comes back to him yeah 00:31:40.069 --> 00:31:42.150 i think i think that's a wise decision there 00:31:42.150 --> 00:31:46.190 yeah okay let's hope we never have to find out 00:31:46.190 --> 00:31:52.450 no um if you yes okay one pianist dead or alive 00:31:52.450 --> 00:31:58.990 you travel long and far to hear probably sviatoslav 00:31:58.990 --> 00:32:05.859 richter did you hear him no Very regrettably, 00:32:05.900 --> 00:32:08.900 no. I mean, I could have done his kind of late 00:32:08.900 --> 00:32:11.980 concerts with a small lamp on the piano in the 00:32:11.980 --> 00:32:14.619 corner. I was around when he was doing that, 00:32:14.680 --> 00:32:17.980 but I was too ignorant and young still. I didn't 00:32:17.980 --> 00:32:22.140 know what was going on. You've seen the beautiful 00:32:22.140 --> 00:32:25.039 film of his. Absolutely. Yes, absolutely. And 00:32:25.039 --> 00:32:27.119 in fact, when you say Trafalgar, it would be 00:32:27.119 --> 00:32:30.380 going back to maybe the 50s and 60s. That's where 00:32:30.380 --> 00:32:36.259 I would want to go. Definitely. kind of relentless 00:32:36.259 --> 00:32:39.359 demonic energy. It must have just been amazing. 00:32:39.460 --> 00:32:41.099 There's that incredible recording of pictures 00:32:41.099 --> 00:32:44.079 in an exhibition from, I think, Sofia in 1961. 00:32:44.440 --> 00:32:48.039 It's just so demonic and so powerful. It just 00:32:48.039 --> 00:32:50.339 jumps at you right through the speakers. In a 00:32:50.339 --> 00:32:54.099 way, very few recordings sort of do. It's extraordinary. 00:32:54.359 --> 00:33:00.000 Yeah. Nice answer there. One person, dead or 00:33:00.000 --> 00:33:04.819 alive, you'd love to play for? also difficult. 00:33:07.099 --> 00:33:12.200 Maybe Rachmaninoff. Why? Why did you choose him? 00:33:14.579 --> 00:33:20.339 Because by all accounts, he was possibly the 00:33:20.339 --> 00:33:22.380 most phenomenal classical pianist who ever lived. 00:33:23.099 --> 00:33:26.519 And I would, yeah, I would just, I would just 00:33:26.519 --> 00:33:29.339 be very, I mean, and that's unfair really, because 00:33:29.339 --> 00:33:31.460 that's not all he was. I mean, he was also unbelievably. 00:33:33.039 --> 00:33:35.319 wonderful composer that really really gifted 00:33:35.319 --> 00:33:37.119 and he he was probably quite modest about that 00:33:37.119 --> 00:33:40.420 himself but but um i just love playing his music 00:33:40.420 --> 00:33:43.259 no i think i think someone who has that kind 00:33:43.259 --> 00:33:48.980 of astonishing pianism and astonishing compositional 00:33:48.980 --> 00:33:52.420 mind and able to do both and and write operas 00:33:52.420 --> 00:33:54.740 and stuff i mean you know again there are lots 00:33:54.740 --> 00:33:58.500 of people that i would like to like to play but 00:33:58.500 --> 00:34:04.170 uh yes possibly yes um Yes. Why didn't I say 00:34:04.170 --> 00:34:05.710 Liszt? That's a good question. Why didn't I say 00:34:05.710 --> 00:34:10.809 Liszt? I don't know. I think I have probably 00:34:10.809 --> 00:34:13.409 personally speaking, just for me, I find that 00:34:13.409 --> 00:34:15.090 I have more affinity with Rachmaninoff's music 00:34:15.090 --> 00:34:17.230 than with Liszt's music. But that's not to say 00:34:17.230 --> 00:34:19.690 that I don't think Liszt was an absolute great 00:34:19.690 --> 00:34:22.389 master. I mean, he was incredible. So, yeah, 00:34:22.510 --> 00:34:25.309 it's finely balanced, I suppose. But I went for 00:34:25.309 --> 00:34:29.030 Rachmaninoff. Great. OK. Do you have any technical 00:34:29.030 --> 00:34:35.349 struggles? Well, the answer is yes. And I kind 00:34:35.349 --> 00:34:37.809 of refer you to the answer I gave before. Technique 00:34:37.809 --> 00:34:41.610 is, you know, using your wherewithal to achieve 00:34:41.610 --> 00:34:46.349 something. And that is, for me, that's the struggle 00:34:46.349 --> 00:34:48.849 of an artist. That's the search. That's trying 00:34:48.849 --> 00:34:52.570 to get what you want and to achieve absolutely 00:34:52.570 --> 00:34:55.769 what you have in your inner ear and something 00:34:55.769 --> 00:34:59.949 that really works. My practice, I suppose, in 00:34:59.949 --> 00:35:02.969 that respect, could be viewed as one big technical 00:35:02.969 --> 00:35:05.750 struggle. But I mean, I have no problem playing 00:35:05.750 --> 00:35:11.369 octaves or whatever, thirds and stuff. That's 00:35:11.369 --> 00:35:17.130 lucky. That's nice. Yeah, it's difficult. So 00:35:17.130 --> 00:35:18.769 with the Ligeti Etudes, for example, this is 00:35:18.769 --> 00:35:21.530 the thing that they're so monstrous and so ferocious 00:35:21.530 --> 00:35:25.030 and unbelievably demanding. And I do struggle 00:35:25.030 --> 00:35:27.869 with them. I think everybody does. But the big 00:35:27.869 --> 00:35:35.210 struggle really is to, for me anyway, to not 00:35:35.210 --> 00:35:36.730 forget about the ghost in the machine. There's 00:35:36.730 --> 00:35:38.630 all this stuff going on and somehow they're incredibly 00:35:38.630 --> 00:35:44.730 human, moving, great compositions. I mean, they 00:35:44.730 --> 00:35:46.389 all last two or three minutes, but they really 00:35:46.389 --> 00:35:49.329 are great compositions. And so that's where the 00:35:49.329 --> 00:35:51.820 technique there really... It's really stretched 00:35:51.820 --> 00:35:53.579 beyond belief. It's like you've got to do all 00:35:53.579 --> 00:35:55.619 these polyrhythms and multiple lines and hear 00:35:55.619 --> 00:35:58.760 everything in your head. But what's it all for? 00:35:59.619 --> 00:36:03.079 You've got to look down on it almost. To contemplate 00:36:03.079 --> 00:36:05.079 it, to kind of imagine it, to hear everything, 00:36:05.199 --> 00:36:08.460 to be able to conceptualise the whole thing and 00:36:08.460 --> 00:36:12.480 for it not to be just kind of a maelstrom of 00:36:12.480 --> 00:36:16.460 notes, you know? I get it, yeah. What would be 00:36:16.460 --> 00:36:18.780 your advice to an amateur pianist about how to 00:36:18.780 --> 00:36:26.639 improve? I think probably the same advice I would 00:36:26.639 --> 00:36:28.139 give to anyone who wants to improve at anything. 00:36:30.559 --> 00:36:37.199 Be dedicated. Be mindful. Don't push yourself 00:36:37.199 --> 00:36:43.780 too hard, but don't expect too little. And progress 00:36:43.780 --> 00:36:50.780 is a long game. It is. Very wise words. Okay. 00:36:51.159 --> 00:36:57.230 If you weren't a pianist, what would you be it's 00:36:57.230 --> 00:36:58.769 funny this is this should be the easiest one 00:36:58.769 --> 00:37:01.510 but i do struggle with this question because 00:37:01.510 --> 00:37:04.050 of course i i studied i didn't study music at 00:37:04.050 --> 00:37:06.750 university i studied science i was a natural 00:37:06.750 --> 00:37:11.489 scientist so i should probably say um that um 00:37:11.489 --> 00:37:16.650 uh if i weren't a pianist i would be i don't 00:37:16.650 --> 00:37:20.070 know like a research geneticist or something 00:37:20.070 --> 00:37:23.829 but i'm not sure i would be Because I don't think 00:37:23.829 --> 00:37:27.730 that's really me when I think about it now. Well, 00:37:28.889 --> 00:37:30.829 you obviously dropped it along the way, didn't 00:37:30.829 --> 00:37:33.469 you? I dropped it along the way. I was very, 00:37:33.530 --> 00:37:36.929 very interested in it. But as a career, probably 00:37:36.929 --> 00:37:39.909 it was not for me. So I don't know. I think probably 00:37:39.909 --> 00:37:42.929 without music, I would have drifted around and 00:37:42.929 --> 00:37:48.250 done different things and hopefully found a way 00:37:48.250 --> 00:37:50.849 forward at some point. But I don't know what 00:37:50.849 --> 00:37:53.840 that would be. Music has been a great anchor 00:37:53.840 --> 00:37:57.239 in my life. Okay, so what was, and I'm going 00:37:57.239 --> 00:37:59.599 off the beaten track, what was your turning point 00:37:59.599 --> 00:38:04.599 then? You were obviously studying that. It's 00:38:04.599 --> 00:38:09.179 hard to explain, but I did at a certain point 00:38:09.179 --> 00:38:13.559 realise, shortly before I started my degree actually, 00:38:13.639 --> 00:38:19.619 that music was the big pull, career -wise. And 00:38:19.619 --> 00:38:22.099 that at that point I... I did decide to continue 00:38:22.099 --> 00:38:23.579 with my studies just because I thought, well, 00:38:23.659 --> 00:38:25.539 if I'm going to spend my life doing music, why 00:38:25.539 --> 00:38:29.440 not kind of immerse myself in this now? Because 00:38:29.440 --> 00:38:32.199 I find it interesting. And I had plenty of musical 00:38:32.199 --> 00:38:36.719 opportunities at the time anyway. So it seemed 00:38:36.719 --> 00:38:39.900 to make sense. And I sort of appreciate that. 00:38:39.940 --> 00:38:41.599 I appreciate this kind of the different perspective 00:38:41.599 --> 00:38:45.360 that it's brought me. And also I was mixing with 00:38:45.360 --> 00:38:47.869 a very broad... range of people who are interested 00:38:47.869 --> 00:38:49.949 in many different things at the time so i i kind 00:38:49.949 --> 00:38:54.110 of value that yeah i understand that okay finally 00:38:54.110 --> 00:38:56.769 one composer you're not quite ready to tackle 00:38:56.769 --> 00:39:04.969 at the moment i feel it might be bartok okay 00:39:04.969 --> 00:39:10.590 i'm not sure why not ready i don't know you know 00:39:10.590 --> 00:39:12.250 with all these variations and the two -year thing 00:39:12.250 --> 00:39:14.250 i've kind of made myself a pledge that in in 00:39:14.250 --> 00:39:17.130 27 28 i'm going to play recital programs of music 00:39:17.130 --> 00:39:20.210 that i i just i'm going to play for fun and i've 00:39:20.210 --> 00:39:22.309 been playing for years but i'm already breaking 00:39:22.309 --> 00:39:25.969 that i'm breaking that so so i don't know um 00:39:25.969 --> 00:39:30.269 yeah he's sort of been on my mind for a while 00:39:30.269 --> 00:39:33.190 but i haven't even taken the first step really 00:39:33.190 --> 00:39:36.030 i mean i've played contrasts a few times um so 00:39:36.030 --> 00:39:38.530 maybe that is the first mini step but but um 00:39:40.300 --> 00:39:42.260 Wow. Well, you've got a lot on your plate. Absolutely. 00:39:42.340 --> 00:39:44.019 There's plenty to do at the moment. Yeah. So 00:39:44.019 --> 00:39:48.860 I'm not struggling for work or things to do. 00:39:48.940 --> 00:39:51.239 So I'm happy. And have you thought what you're 00:39:51.239 --> 00:39:53.460 going to do after the, when the variation series 00:39:53.460 --> 00:39:55.800 comes to an end? Well, I have to, people are 00:39:55.800 --> 00:39:58.019 asking. So I'm actually this week going to put 00:39:58.019 --> 00:40:00.119 my mind to it and sort of put a couple of programs 00:40:00.119 --> 00:40:04.619 together. So see whether, I don't know, but there 00:40:04.619 --> 00:40:07.320 could be some Chopin there. There could be some 00:40:07.320 --> 00:40:10.860 Mozart there. I kind of adore. playing Mozart. 00:40:11.119 --> 00:40:15.179 So we shall see. We shall see. Fabulous. Oh, 00:40:15.199 --> 00:40:16.619 well, I think that's a really good place for 00:40:16.619 --> 00:40:20.780 us to finish. I'm looking forward to hearing 00:40:20.780 --> 00:40:24.059 you in February. What was the date again? The 00:40:24.059 --> 00:40:26.800 15th, isn't it? The 15th of February, that's 00:40:26.800 --> 00:40:29.460 right, at Wigmore Hall. And then in April, what's 00:40:29.460 --> 00:40:34.280 the date? 27. I think you're right. Yeah, it 00:40:34.280 --> 00:40:37.000 is. Okay, so for everybody listening out there. 00:40:38.320 --> 00:40:41.920 come and hear that that will be yes those two 00:40:41.920 --> 00:40:44.260 programs i'm both for it i'm i'm proud of both 00:40:44.260 --> 00:40:46.500 of those programs so i hope people will enjoy 00:40:46.500 --> 00:40:49.760 them oh well i look forward to hearing you on 00:40:49.760 --> 00:40:51.739 the stage and thank you so much for joining me 00:40:51.739 --> 00:40:54.079 today it's a great pleasure erica thanks so much 00:40:54.079 --> 00:41:22.190 thank you That was the scherzo second movement 00:41:22.190 --> 00:41:25.670 from Amy Beach's Piano Concerto and it was performed 00:41:25.670 --> 00:41:29.550 by Danny Driver. Pianist podcasts are free and 00:41:29.550 --> 00:41:31.510 a really good way to support what we do is by 00:41:31.510 --> 00:41:34.489 subscribing to Pianist. Visit our website at 00:41:34.489 --> 00:41:37.409 pianistmagazine .com and listen to us on YouTube 00:41:37.409 --> 00:41:40.690 by searching Pianist Magazine. And don't forget 00:41:40.690 --> 00:41:43.070 to sign up to our newsletter which is full of 00:41:43.070 --> 00:41:46.110 extra playing tips and useful information. Go 00:41:46.110 --> 00:41:49.369 to pianistmagazine .com to find out how to sign 00:41:49.369 --> 00:41:49.630 up.