I interviewed the amazing American pianist Ivan Ilić ahead of the release of his new CD, The Transcendentalist - http://heresyrecords.com/ivan- ilic-the-transcendentalist/
Here's part one of our chat:
Here's part one of our chat:
MF: You played Glenn
Gould in a film. What was that like?
II: It was very
interesting. Part of the challenge with
it was that I had to somehow physically evoke Glenn Gould - but, you know, I
wasn’t playing him actually. It was the reincarnation of him, so I was supposed
to allude to him without actually being him, so that was pretty tricky. But it worked out well. I was lucky.
MF: You were in another movie about a pianist, right?
II: Yeah, that was a
much more in-depth experience for me because the director, Luc Plissonneau,
wrote the script for me. It was really,
really fun! I had a blast with it. And actually it’s online now, finally, for
the first time, after two years. So I’m
really excited. It's
going really well.
MF: You were born in
Yugoslavia. What language did your parents speak?
II: Serbian. Or I guess at the time it was called
Serbo-Croatian, but it’s, you know, it’s the same language – Serbian and
Croatian. It’s a Slavic language. It’s quite similar to Russian in terms of its
structure. And it’s actually quite a
useful language for music because it’s very, very different from English. And so if one speaks both languages, it gives
you access to other languages.
MF: Were your parents
musicians?
II: They’re not, but
they’re very appreciative of music. And
I would say that they understand the importance of culture in general. That was very important, because otherwise it
would have been impossible to pursue the path I did. You know, there are stories of people who
forge careers against all odds. I wasn’t
really one of those people. I mean there
were odds, but they were mostly odds I made for myself, rather than odds that
were against me. I think it’s really
important to have support, whether it’s your family, or the people that are
close to you. It doesn’t necessarily
mean that they are musicians themselves, but if they just are supportive of
somebody working hard toward a goal, I think that’s the most important
thing.
MF: So at some point
you must have told them you needed a piano.
II: [laughs] Yeah! I had a really horrible upright piano for
years and years, and actually it was a big long debate when I was in high
school, whether my parents were going to invest in a really beautiful
instrument. And I remember very clearly,
my parents being kind of skeptical, saying to themselves, you know, we’re going
to invest I don’t know how many thousands of dollars in this beautiful
instrument, and I bet he’s going to give up the piano six months later. I’m still pretty
proud that I didn’t! Actually we still
have that piano. It’s a wonderful piano.
MF: Is that the one
in the picture of you on your website, where you’re really little, like six or
seven?
II: That was the very
first one. It was a Baldwin, which was
fine. But it was one of these things
where - I’m sure that many piano students can relate to this - when I went to my
teacher’s house, every time I thought his piano keys were so heavy, because he
had a grand piano. And mine were super light, and I didn’t realize that. And it’s ironic because I still keep in touch
with that piano teacher, and I sometimes go back to his place, and now his
piano seems really, really light. So it’s ironic. Of course maybe it’s just
that twenty years later, people have been playing on his piano so much that
it’s become light…but I don’t think so.
MF: So your parents brought you to the States when you were a toddler, and then you went to UC Berkeley, where you
majored in piano and math?
II: Yeah, it was a really busy time. From the very
beginning of my studies I was practicing a lot.
The only people that were practicing as much as I was, were the music
majors that were really, really serious.
So that just happened immediately.
But it’s interesting because at the time, I didn't feel like I had to
choose. I knew that I was going to be in
school, and that I had at least four years ahead of me. And so it felt like a comfortable surrounding
in which I could try different things.
And that, for me, was very important.
Maybe some people at that age just want to practice and do nothing else,
but I was really curious about other things.
Math was always something that was easy for me, early on,
but the kind of math that you study at a big university is completely different
than the kind of math that you learn when you’re an adolescent. So that was a big eye-opener for me and much,
much more difficult than I expected. But
it was also really attractive to me, that challenge. And it was fun, because the math majors were
all Chinese, or Russians, or Indians, and the teachers were all from the former
Soviet Union. They’d left because their
jobs there were not comfortable jobs.
Many of them were Jews. And
there’s this whole scandal that’s come out recently, about how there were many
Jewish students that were really, really talented that couldn’t get a place at
the math academies because of anti-Semitism.
So it was just a really interesting cultural experience in addition to
the whole math thing.
MF: You said that language
is sort of like music. Are language and music related to math?
II: Yes,
definitely. I think that whether it’s
different languages, or music, or math, there’s always some kind of a
structure. There are certain people that
perceive patterns more quickly and then, you know, they’ll just learn things by
patterns. So if you learn things by
pattern you’re not learning the exceptions to the rules very well. So you’re
making little mistakes, but you get kind of most of it right. And that was something that, I think, was
complementary, learning these different things at the same time. So there were
other things that I was less interested in, say, like biology or
chemistry. Part of that has to do with
having teachers who weren’t as engaged as my math teachers. But I think that also some of that is
memorization. And I – I never was that
interested in memorization. It was more
kind of about somehow imposing a structure on a whole bunch of information, so
things would go faster. Like finding
shortcuts, is, I guess, another way of saying it.
MF: Instead of concertizing, you’re concentrating on the piano as a solo
instrument. Was that a conscious choice?
II: Yeah, definitely
a very conscious choice on my part.
Earlier I was playing with orchestras when I was in my early twenties,
and also a lot of chamber music. I was
accompanying singers. I was living with a singer at the time, and that was a
big part of my life. It was, you know, wonderful. I’m sure there were a lot of important things
that happened. But ultimately – I guess it maybe has to do with my personality type – but when
you’re alone and faced with your own shortcomings, there’s a certain kind of
progress you can make, which I find very compelling. It just interests me. And I’m lucky that there’s both a big
repertoire for solo piano and also a lot of audience for solo piano. You know many of the concert series where I
play across Europe, there might be, let’s say, one big concert a month. And there’ll be chamber music, and there’ll always be a solo piano recital. Because that’s something that’s, you know, still pretty popular in the context of classical music. In terms of repertoire, I became more and
more comfortable with playing whatever I was interested in. Earlier in my career I played famous pieces,
because people want to hear familiar music.
But more and more I feel that it’s better to play what you can do well
and what you feel like playing, rather than playing something because you think
other people expect it of you. I think
that if you do that, and I have a few colleagues that have been doing that for
decades, you lose your curiosity. You
lose, kind of, your edge. And I think
that’s probably the most dangerous thing in this profession, to have it become
a routine. It becomes really obvious
when someone is on stage and they don’t feel like being there.
No comments:
Post a Comment