Episode 46

Natasha Paremski

Sun, 17 Oct 2021  ·  00:28:22  ·  Transcript available

On this month's INTERPLAY, a Conversation In Music with the remarkable Natasha Paremski, quite simply one of the greatest pianists on our stages. This discussion delves into how her background in Russian pianism and schooling informs her playing. We discuss the position of the hands, how the fingers touch and release, and how relaxed the arm must be to accomplish unrivaled ease with the most difficult music. Ms. Paremski even makes Rachmaninoff concerti look easy. A dynamic conversation in music not to be missed!

Find out more at www.michaelshapiro.com

Transcript

Michael Shapiro:
Welcome to Interplay: Conversations in Music. This is your host, Michael Shapiro, with my special guest and longtime friend, Natasha Paremski. Hello, Natasha.
Natasha Paremski:
Hi, Michael Shapiro.
Michael Shapiro:
Good to see you. And—
Natasha Paremski:
A pleasure to be here. It's going to be fun.
Michael Shapiro:
Yeah. You're in El Paso, Texas, these days, right now, and I'm in Chappaqua, New York, but through the wonders of the internet, we are talking on Interplay.So, for those who are not familiar with Natasha's playing as a pianist, I consider her one of the most extraordinary musicians I have ever heard, and I've heard a lot of them from— It's true! From Horowitz, and Rachmaninoff, and Richter, and Gilels live, and when I was a kid, to, uh, now. And, um—I recently, because, you know, I'm friendly with Andrew Litton, we did a broadcast recently. I put on your performance of the Rachmaninoff Third Piano Concerto with the Bergen Philharmonic. Um, Bergen Philharmonic holds a special place for me since I conducted, uh, in 2018 at the Bergen Festival, my Frankenstein score. And I spent a good amount of time with, uh, the conductor of the Bergen Philharmonic after Andrew Litton, Edward Gardner.But that performance, I will have to say, for those who do not know your pianism, people have to watch the YouTube, because it is utterly extraordinary, and we're going to go to the specifics of why.I grew up on the—on the, uh, Rachmaninoff recording with Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra, who I also heard live, but much later than the Rachmaninoff recording. And I thought that that was the end of all recordings for that piece. Of course, we're familiar with, uh, Horowitz's recording, which is very demonic, and Van Cliburn's, our old early recording, and I worked with Van, you know, late in his career. Um, but yours just stands up with all of those, including the old man himself. Now, let's—well, we can say "wow," but let's examine why.Do you think that there is a characterization that you do with—let's just speak about Rachmaninoff 3—that somehow is organically coming out of the music? What—what are you thinking, Natasha? What am I thinking when I'm playing Rach 3? Just that piece.
Natasha Paremski:
Well, you know, if—if I consider the work as a whole, I— believe it or not, I might get in trouble for saying this. It's on a much smaller scale than we think. Um, meaning that Rachmaninoff takes these microscopic motifs,
Michael Shapiro:
Right.
Natasha Paremski:
and he expands a 48-minute, gargantuan concerto from a very, very, very small seed. Um, and it's just—that's what's so remarkable about it. In a sense, if you—if—it's—it's much less like we were just talking about Rachmaninoff being a melodist. It's perhaps not as overtly melodic as say, a Rach 2, which is really just about the melody, and th—and there are so many melodies. But here, like, for example, the second move—the Intermezzo, he takes this—it's a beautiful melody, but it's over quite quickly, and then he expands on it. It becomes a theme of variations, and it comes back in just these different forms and different colors and different textures. It's really an improvisation. This piece, I think, is above and beyond any of his other piano works, um, or anything written for the piano. It really is, genuinely, an improvisation on, you know, like one or two melodies in the first, you know, and things like that. And never mind the third movement, which is the, you know, the middle section, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da, like that over and over again. But, you know, and some people actually dislike the concerto for—for that reason, you know, the more kind of—our more cerebrally driven colleagues. Um, and th—they think it's just not as rich and dense, but to me, I think that it's—it's—it's incredible to see how much Rachmaninoff was influenced by New York, and how he was influenced by actually American jazz. And yes, of course, there's Russian flavor all over it. But for me, it's kind of creating—my—my number one goal with that concerto is creating a genuine feeling of making it up as I go along.
Michael Shapiro:
It felt that way in the Bergen performance. But it was not only spontaneous, it was so incredibly, um, passionate and expressive. There wasn't a phrase in that performance— Now, technically, because I know that some piano students will be watching this, you know, the movie Shine with Geoffrey Rush, "Rock 3," you know, the craziness of Geoffrey Rush in that film playing the—the lead character. You play it as if you're playing Three Blind Mice. You know, you have [Shapiro laughs] you have technique to spare up the wazoo.So, let's go back, if we may, to Russia, when you're a little girl. How did you progress, you think? I mean, obviously, there's a natural talent, a natural musicianship, cultured by a lot of chamber music playing, a lot of symphonic playing with orchestras, a lot of solo work, all the huge repertoire. But technically, coming from the mind, which has this musicality, to the fingers that can—that can play those notes—I cannot play the Third Piano Concerto, and I'm a school pianist, okay? I cannot do it. Second, barely, right? Third, no way, ever, ever, ever. I mean, not—not happening. So—
Natasha Paremski:
Never say never.
Michael Shapiro:
At my age, I write music. I don't play any in public anymore. I conduct a lot, but I don't play anymore. So, let's talk about your pl— from early age in Russia, coming at 8 years old here, your studies at Mannes, etc. How do you think your virtuosity developed? Do you remember when it suddenly clicked? How did it happen that it moved to the tips of your fingers without thinking a second time?
Natasha Paremski:
Well, um, look, it started— I remember my very first piano lesson in Russia, and I remember the teacher forcing me to understand the weight of my hand at the age of three and a half years old. She was over like—they start—it's—it's from ground zero. It's like technique, technique, technique, because look, the—the Russian, um, theory of virtuosity is that if you can't play everything, you can't play really anything. So, you have to be able to have the complete toolbox, and even Neuhaus writes about how when Gilels came to study with him, he said, "You know, this guy, I've never seen anybody play such fast octaves, and I've never seen anybody blaze through so quickly through these most demonic of passages." And he was so obsessed with his technique. He was just like constantly working on his technique. And Neuhaus said, "And I encouraged that very much because the—the more connected, the—the greater your understanding of the instrument, the greater you can exp— Your goal really as a pianist is to become—to have the utmost connection to this most autonomous of in—instruments, the—the one instrument that could do pretty much any color. Um, and it can go from the tiniest pianissimo to the, you know, most explosive Prokofiev Second Piano Concerto first movement cadenza, um, madness. Um, but it all starts from age three and a half in Russia anyway, where like they teach you the—the freedom and, you know, correct, uh, wrist position, and I remember my first lesson, I—I asked my teacher, I said, "So, when can I do octaves?"
Michael Shapiro:
[Laughs] What? At three and a half?
Natasha Paremski:
She says, "You can't reach pedals. Let's think about the octaves in a little while." But then, I remember lesson number two, I was playing something and she noticed some tension in my hand. She says, "And this is how you will only be able to play octaves for very short time." And so, you know, it's tension release and, um, you know, they kind of tried to impose extra, uh, you know, Czerny and all those études on me, but mean, that—that fell on deaf ears real quick because I was like, "No, I want to play real music. I didn't get into this for études." So, um, and then like my family immigrated, and th—they didn't immigrate for me. They immigrated for my father, who was, uh, a computer scientist, and because when the wall fell, the—the Soviet Union having collapsed, they literally—they call it katastroika because it just became a—a catastrophic country to live in.
Michael Shapiro:
Not perestroika, but katastroika. Yeah.
Natasha Paremski:
Katastroika, yeah. And so my mom, yeah, my mom did not want to raise her children there. I have a younger brother. And so sh— there were a lot of people poaching people like my father to come to the United States, to Silicon Valley, and pursue, you know, computer science there in the boom of the '90s. And my mom said, "Yeah, we're going." But they literally had to start from zero. They—literally my dad came to this country with all the essentials, which for a Russian person are a pack of cigarettes, uh, a bottle of vodka, and a passport. So, um, that's how my dad start, at the age of 48, not speaking a word of English.
Michael Shapiro:
Mm.
Natasha Paremski:
And obviously, it was just made very clear to me that the piano is not a priority. Piano lessons were free in Russia, and they were expensive here—are expensive here—and didn't have the money to transport what—the piano-shaped object that wouldn't have made it across the pond. Right. And, so, no piano, no music for about nine, ten months, maybe a year. Um, and then—and then I just begged my parents to play, because I—sh—my mom got tickets to see Evgeny Kissin, and I believe it was at Herbst Theatre at San Francisco Performances. It may have even been his debut on that series and his San Francisco debut.
Michael Shapiro:
Right.
Natasha Paremski:
And I just remember being completely blown away. I mean, of course I knew who he was, and I, uh, we had a cassette tape of his 12-year-old Chopin concertos, which I effectively destroyed by playing them non-stop in my mom's car. Uh, and to see him in the flesh was just insane. And I remember crying and just—it was so painful for me. I was—was really missing the instrument. And so I begged my parents. I said, "I really want to be like that. I want to be a performing artist. I want to be on that stage, and I want to one day play a solo recital on that same stage." Um, and, uh, yeah, let's see. I made my San Francisco debut about seven years later.
Michael Shapiro:
All right, but let's wait. Before we get—
Natasha Paremski:
Oh, wait.
Michael Shapiro:
Yeah.
Natasha Paremski:
But then when I begged them—I begged them—they said, "But we don't have any money." And they th—they and—and—but I said, "But Mom, like, I can't live without this. I'm jealous of anybody who's in front of me like in a movie or like at my dad's company party playing the party. I'm jealous of all those people." I started playing on my knees. I mean, it was really sad, and my parents just broke themselves. And the first thing they did was they tried to look for a Russian piano teacher.
Michael Shapiro:
Ah.
Natasha Paremski:
It was really important to them. It was not like just any teacher who people say like, "Oh, yeah, this person's—"
Michael Shapiro:
You were in California, were you?
Natasha Paremski:
Huh?
Michael Shapiro:
You were in California, were you?
Natasha Paremski:
Oh, yes, um, Silicon Valley, so, um, Mountain View.
Michael Shapiro:
Okay, so they were looking for a Russian piano teacher, and then—
Natasha Paremski:
And they found, yeah, sure, like believe it or not, there's quite a plethora. So, um, you know, I had a couple of teachers that kind of honored that technical approach. Then I had a German teacher, and he was—he was good because I mean, I would—I didn't listen to a word he was saying about the technique because I was like, "No, I use a different manual." Um,
Michael Shapiro:
I want to talk about the manual, because we haven't gotten to that. Talk—
Natasha Paremski:
Oh, yeah.
Michael Shapiro:
Talk— please be as specific as possible. I have seen, for example, Heifetz masterclasses, which are allow— on video, where you can see how he is teaching, coming out of his Auer training. What did you have to study to get to the point that you can play Rachmaninoff 3 with such authority that is literally so easy for you? What did you do?
Natasha Paremski:
Um, well, I would say the moment it clicked was actually when I came to Mannes and I studied with Pavlina Dokovska, who is like the—she's a Neuhaus school granddaughter, if that makes sense. Like, her teacher studied with Neuhaus. So, it's like a direct lineage.
Michael Shapiro:
Like actors with Stanislavski and their grandchildren. It's the same—
Natasha Paremski:
Yeah.
Michael Shapiro:
Yeah, yeah.
Natasha Paremski:
Yeah, exactly. And, um, so she actually— let's—let's say she revealed what I had kind of found somewhat naturally, um, but she just revealed it, and it really all boils down to going to the bottom of the key and releasing. I mean, unfortunately, it's that simple. Um, and using the whole weight of your body, playing from your back muscles, um, never playing from your shoulders, never playing from your elbow, and definitely never playing from your wrist, and never isolating fingers like this. This is the worst thing you could possibly do. And I now call it when I teach, I call it the valves. Like all the valves. I said, "Don't close the valves." And the minute you close one valve, that's it. It restricts. And so, you play like this, you close one, two, three, four valves. You're like, [sighs] "Try to sing like this."
Michael Shapiro:
So, show with your hand—can you show with your hand how you put that in per note? How do you put the note in?
Natasha Paremski:
So, like one— yeah, one of the things that, um, Ms. Dokovska likes to do with students who really need like a lot of um, like, un—un-tightening,
Michael Shapiro:
Yeah, yeah.
Natasha Paremski:
is she puts them on a simple C major scale and you—and it's really this like kind of like—like all of this is loose, but your your—your very last joint is extraordinarily engaged. And it's really like thinking about pizzicato. You go to the bottom of the key and you just—it's like this motion. Mhm. So, people think staccato is this, mhm, but actually, that's garbage, because [Natasha laughs] that's not precise at all. Um, but in Russian staccato technique, it's this. It's going to the key and actually feeling the key release you back up. So, really, you're only doing a down motion, you never do an up motion. So, when people play like this, it's already indicative of tension.
Michael Shapiro:
Interesting.
Natasha Paremski:
Yeah. So, the moment anybody goes like this off of a chord, I'm like, "Ooh, no Rach 3 for you." [Laughs]
Michael Shapiro:
This is great. Now, let's talk about hand position.
Natasha Paremski:
Mhm.
Michael Shapiro:
Horowitz was famous for very flat fingers.
Natasha Paremski:
Well, have you ever played his piano? He could get away with it.
Michael Shapiro:
And you know he could only have one piano. I was with the technician once at Steinway basement and he showed me what—what—what part of it did. But you know, Rubinstein I heard many times, he had more of a German kind of playing. Richter and Gilels, certainly, with what you're talking about. I mean, oh yeah. My God, I remember it. Richter put his whole body into it, as did Gilels. They're very physically different. Gilels was kind of a bear of a man, and Richter was not, but they both, you know.This is fascinating. This is the kind of thing I wanted to get out of you today was discussing this technical approach, which is just part of it, of course. Now let's— let's talk about musicality, which to me is a magnificent thing. You also, from an early age, have done chamber music, correct?
Natasha Paremski:
Mhm. Like from age ten.
Michael Shapiro:
Yeah. And chamber music: piano quartets, piano quintets, piano trios, accompanying a violinist, accompanying a singer, accompanying a cellist. And your marvelous recording with Zuill Bailey, of great cellist, indicative of this kind of connection. Do you think your chamber music playing has, um, influenced your concerto playing and back to chamber music?
Natasha Paremski:
Oh, sure, without a doubt. I would say—
Michael Shapiro:
How?
Natasha Paremski:
For sure. Well, the—the—the way it influenced my concerto playing is—mean, if you take a piece like Rach 2, for example, or either one of the Brahms concertos, any Beethoven concerto, you're really part of the fabric very much, and you're sometimes literally accompanying. You're just sitting there accompanying. Like, think about the—the development—the exposition—sorry, the development section of Beethoven 4, and how you're just like—you're texturizing. And it's really like the wind show and the string show, and um, you know, you—you have to have that sensibility and sensitivity.I think when people are not exposed to playing concertos with an orchestra, um, from a young age, um, you know, in tandem with chamber music playing, it's very easy for them to confuse that just because they're soloists, that they lead all the time. And you'll find it very funny—and I—I—I laugh, I giggle inside now that I, every time I'm—I have a conductor meeting, I actually ask very, very frequently for the conductor to lead, because it's just safer. It's safer for me to be able to, especially when I'm not a leading texture, to be able to plug myself in and, you know, and gel. Uh-huh. But if a conductor doesn't have a strong vision, and especially in a piece like Brahms 1, Brahms 2, like, the whole thing can fall apart, because if you're waiting for me, and I'm waiting for you—and that's the thing about chamber music as well, you know, at any given moment, somebody is leading the texture, and it's not always just the first violinist.
Michael Shapiro:
I will tell you, my best experiences with soloists have been when we breathe together and there's the give and take. Um, no question. But I think both sides have to have the conception. Very much so. Uh, uh, and what I've—you know, I've done a lot of concerto accompanying over the years, and I do find that yes, the preparatory work is great, but if the pianist has never done chamber music, they shouldn't be anywhere near concerto, ever, because they don't understand the whole idea of the back and forth. Now—
Natasha Paremski:
The idea of the back and forth, and also anticipation.
Michael Shapiro:
Yeah.
Natasha Paremski:
Like, being able—I think I just learned from a really, really super young age to listen to vibrato.
Michael Shapiro:
Mhm.
Natasha Paremski:
And I don't have to look. It has nothing to do with, you know, whether I've known the person for a long time. I can hear from the vibrato when that note is going to change.
Michael Shapiro:
I want to talk about—I want to talk about new music if you don't mind. Um, you mentioned a pianist, and I don't mind mentioning his name, and that's Kissin, who I knew, uh, when he was in his 20s or 30s, because we did a memorial concert together, and then we met a few times before that with a friend—friend in common. And I talked to him about new music, and he looked at me—because he knows I was a composer—and he said, "Well, no one is composing today as good as, uh, uh, Schumann and Chopin, so I'm not really very interested."Boom! Right away! Now, when I heard that, it—it gave me some pause and actually made me rather sad for him, because I didn't see a development in him intellectually that was important, and as a musician. I—I was rather shocked with that comment. So, where do you want—what is your taste these days in—in new music? Where do you want to go with it, and what—what—what do you add to your repertoire? What are you looking for?
Natasha Paremski:
Um, well, I've been lucky enough to have had pieces written for me.
Michael Shapiro:
Mhm.
Natasha Paremski:
And that has been really an extraordinary experience because, um, you know, well, one of—one of the times, the composer was a bit more stringent on like, "No, I wrote it, I want it this way." But I still managed to convince them that, you know, from a pianistic standpoint, you're cramming way too much info into a very narrow space on the keyboard, and, you know, so I love the give and take.But then, like, for example, Fred Hersch, what he wrote for me, the Tchaikovsky Variations, that was so much fun for me because he let me fly with that one. He sent me—he—he sent me his, you know, what he wrote, and then I called him and said, "Fred, I think I know what you're going for in this one variation, but I think that if it was a little bit more succinct—" the opposite problem of the other—"um, I think—I—I—I know what you want. You want like pizzazz. You want this kind of Chopin-window-land thing here. I can, if you don't mind me rewriting it, I'll make it fly with it." He was like, "Yeah."
Michael Shapiro:
Well, that's—that's what he—that's what he should have said.
Natasha Paremski:
Yeah, and so that for me is so exciting, um, where, you know, we're so stifled by the dogma of—never mind Beethoven, you know, we're like, [Natasha laughs] you know, every single dot and—
Michael Shapiro:
The academics, going back to Rachmaninoff and then I asked Sibelius to that list, even Puccini, when I was growing up and going to Columbia College and to Juilliard and Mannes, there was a crew of people who—who looked at Rachmaninoff and Sibelius and Puccini, and they stuck their nose out at it. And I was ready to kill them then. Now—
Natasha Paremski:
There are still those people! I remember Alfred Brendel telling—asking me what I'm playing next, and I said Rachmaninoff's Paganini Variations. He was just like, "That is such a garbage piece." And I was like—
Michael Shapiro:
Well, that's— that, you're a much greater pianist and musician than he will ever be in my book. So let us now—let us now talk about one other thing. One! [Shapiro laughs] True! You're teaching. You are a wonderful teacher, but also you are now the new head of the New York Piano Society, which is a—a major institution in pointing people into the—into the future and dealing with the present. Could you talk to us about it and how you—how that came to you?
Natasha Paremski:
Yeah, well, it is a community of enthusiast pianists. Some people call them amateurs, I hate that word, um, because we have some people who really run their circles around like, the other day, or the other—our most recent concert, uh, one of our members performed the first movement of Chopin Third Sonata, like he doesn't have a major trading day job, you know? Um, with—with super high, uh, intensity day job.So, it's a—it's a community of people who's, uh, who do not make money playing music, and do something else. There are doctors. We have the leading pulmonologist in New York City. He's the founding member, Len Horovitz. Uh-huh. Um, and we have Simon Yates, who's, you know, head of a Japanese bank. Um, we have people who are also in media. Uh, we have a new member who—we have a couple of new members, one of whom started her own beauty company and has also been an anchor for Bloomberg, and also had, uh, a life in trading, and then we have a new member who is, uh, he owns several companies, and then also a non-profit that brings together Palestinians and Israelis through symbols and— it's just a really cool, cool group of people who all—who happen to have studied piano in their youth, and actually at a rather high level, mhm, but elected not to go into music.But how do you just let go of music? You can't just one day switch it off and forget about it.
Michael Shapiro:
No.
Natasha Paremski:
You know, that love is always there.
Michael Shapiro:
It's biological. Huh? It's biological.
Natasha Paremski:
Yeah, exactly. It's biological, and um, I think they have the purest kind of— they, I think they—their—their relationship to music may be more pure than most pros out there.
Michael Shapiro:
It's very well said, because I've met many musicians who don't really like music or listen to it. But I will tell the audience now, as we have to, uh, leave you right now, Natasha Paremski, that, um, you know, run, don't hide, if she—if Natasha's playing locally, and the great news is, your recordings are very much available on the all the major platforms. And, uh, to watch you play, too, is a breathtaking event on YouTube and through your website. So, Natasha Paremski, extraordinary musician, pianist, friend, thank you for being on Interplay.
Natasha Paremski:
Thank you for having me, Michael. It's always fun to talk with you.
Michael Shapiro:
This is Michael Shapiro for Interplay: Conversations in Music. Thank you for joining us.