...if he wants to be good at giving interviews. He can also be happy being a pianist who isn't good at giving interviews.

But then he shouldn't have granted an interview in the first place. He should also expect that because he isn't self promoting like that he is soon passed over for piano playing positions (despite how good he may otherwise be) and has to find a non-playing job (teaching is common). His current job requires him to be good at interviews. If he wants to keep this job he needs to get good at it fast - it may already be too late.

Now if he decides giving interviews isn't what he wants to do and thus switching to a different job where he doesn't have to give interviews (and also will not play publicly much) is the right choice I will not fault him for that. It is his choice and his alone.

> His current job requires him to be good at interviews

I see. I had no idea that was a requirement of being a professional pianist. This all read as incredibly pointless with me thinking that interviews were a side thing for a pianist.

Many people fail to understand thair true job. the real job in cases like this is to promote the show. That means interviews or other activities. Talent playing is a requirement of course, but there is plenty of talent around.

> the real job in cases like this is to promote the show

What, the piano show he performs? Why would that be the pianist's job? Wouldn't that be the venue's responsibility?

Edit: I had to look him up. Quote Wikipedia:

> Igor Levit is a Russian-German pianist who focuses on the works of Bach, Beethoven, and Liszt. He is also a professor at the Musikhochschule Hannover.

So it's not like he's taking gigs in dive bars. Do renowned classical musicians typically shoulder the burden of promoting their own performances... through radio interviews?