I’ve recently been given a lot of food for thought by the internet. After meeting Chris Brogan on Twitter, he thoughtfully asked me how I felt social media affected or was a part of my world as a classical musician. Just as I was thinking of how best to e-mail him my thoughts on quite a complex question, Chris Foley posted an interesting question on his blog about a similar idea. I thought that maybe I could discuss my response in a post.

I certainly do not have all the answers, and can only share some of my thoughts and ideas as a performer and as someone who is starting to become better acquainted with the new media sphere. I tend to think of social media as an information tunnel. It helps me to connect with people who a) might not otherwise get to hear me play live b) want to continue the emotional excitement and connection they original felt from being at a concert. I asked a friend recently about her thoughts on this (she lives in Hawaii) - and she said that one of the reasons why she thought it was great that my videos were on YouTube, was that it allowed her to watch and hear me play even if I don’t go to Hawaii for several years to perform. The reason why I am active on certain other outlets - YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, and this blog - is for this very reason. I feel that somehow I can extend this feeling of connectivity beyond simply the concert itself. This is also the reason why I love doing any community outreach when I go somewhere to play - by just visiting with kids, or giving a master class, I feel as though I can contribute in a way that perhaps will last a little longer than a single night’s performance.

Do I think having tons of friends on MySpace or Facebook directly leads to a musician’s success? Absolutely not. I still believe, or hope, that artistic quality and not empty marketing counts in a musician’s career. Do I believe a great performance in and of itself can still be powerful enough to transform listeners and communicate something that stays with people? Absolutely, and that should still be what we as performers should aim for, what our first priority should be. The essence of music can only truly be transmitted through live performance. There was a time when live concert was the only way that we could reach people, where we could share what it is that we do; but then a technical evolution in the form of recordings came about for the very reason of extending the concert experience to a wider audience and also as a means of preserving the memory of a particular performer’s interpretation. In the same way, I think social media is doing something along the same lines - blogs to preserve a performers ideas and artistic approach, videos to preserve and spread a concert experience.

Many feel that recording technology negatively changed the way in which we play, by advocating a certain technical perfection (a result of editing), leading to thousands of homogenized music students graduating from conservatories consumed with playing all the right notes and mimicking interpretations, rather than making an original artistic statement. And in essence, I think our field’s reluctance and fear of embracing new technology stems from this previous experience - I think we are somehow afraid and wary of the consequences any new technology that encourages widespread dissemination may have on our ability to preserve and recognize quality, especially in a field as discerning as classical music. But perhaps it’s not the technology itself that we should fear, but rather our reaction to it.

Let me elaborate - There is a certain attitude and mentality towards performance itself nowadays that has concerned me, and which I have long felt musicians themselves should take more responsibility for. I have given countless master classes where students are so consumed with what it takes to get a career, how to network and get an agent, how to get concerts, etc. etc., to the point where they don’t really care about the quality of their playing, but care only about how many concerts they can get in a season. I also personally know many well-known soloists and musicians who treat concerts as nothing more as “gigs”, as something to just show up, play mindlessly, grab your paycheck, and leave. Needless to say, as a performer, as someone who loves music, and as an occasional audience member, I find this kind of behavior and attitude offensive.

I think this is at least partially a result of the kind of society we have become, a society in which we often base our sense of self and success on our relationship to our surroundings. We are constantly looking at others, vicariously reading personal blogs and watching reality television, competing against others, somehow trying to find some validation externally rather than internally. There seems to be an inability to determine and understand for ourselves what it means to search for and pursue a deeper quality in one’s music and life, and a certain lack of self-responsibility and awareness. My advice to young musicians has always been the same - first, and foremost, you must always be looking within yourself. How can I improve? How do I keep searching, reaching, and developing as an artist? How do I keep asking questions that challenge me to keep growing? When I go back to play a piece from a year ago, do I take the easy way out and go on auto-pilot and play it the same way as I did then? Or do I dig deeper, and keep searching to discover new things in the music that I didn’t see before? How can I understand myself better? These are questions that only you can ask yourself. The death of any artist is the day they stop growing - the search should continue to the last day of your life, until the last breath you take. And of course, I don’t mean simply locking yourself up in a practice room and looking only at scores for the rest of your life - although there are many people who believe this is what is meant by growing and improving. One has to grow consistently as a human being, in all facets - emotionally, mentally, spiritually - because this is what will always color the lens through which one can perceive and understand humanity, and thereby deepen one’s relationship and understanding to the nature of music and art itself.

When we complain that recording technology changed the way we play, is it really the fault of the technology itself, which was simply a tool that enabled a wider dissemination of music? Shouldn’t musicians themselves take responsibility for the choice they themselves made in changing their fundamental approach towards performance to suit the technology instead of staying true to the integrity and quality of their art? If audiences show up to a concert hall expecting a technically perfect performance that sounds exactly like a recording they heard of Rubinstein’s Chopin or Horowitz’s Rachmaninoff, is it the fault of the technology or does it point out the fact that we need to improve the quality of music education for the public? This is what I mean when I say that rather than being afraid of new technology itself, I think the greater concern is how we each will maintain the responsibility towards original and genuine artistry in our field, even as the means and tools by which that artistry is shared with the public changes.

In the end, I think the issue is a very human one. Technology has the power to change the way in which we view things - this has remained the same throughout the entire course of human civilization. With every advance, we redefine our society and the means through which we connect and communicate with one another, because the tools with which we manage our lives and work change. But the responsibility for how this affects the value and meaning of what we do has always, and I believe will always, lie with each individual, each person, and the choices that we each make.