Classical musicians: artists or analysts
by RUE
I am a freelance violinist (not pictured, that’s Charlie Siem), married to a freelance cellist, surrounded by freelance musician friends. It’s a relatively small circle and you get used to seeing the usual suspects performing at concerts, shows and artistic projects. Scheduling is a constant stressor, but aside from that, it is a good life and we count ourselves extremely fortunate to be able to make a living from an art form. Music is an art form and while I haven’t spent too much time thinking about it, I would personally probably accept the general job description of “performing artist”.
Recently, however, I’ve been reassessing what my definition of “art” is from the viewpoint of a classical freelancer, and whether or not we really qualify to be called artists. Our job has certain requirements, articulated thusly by a friend from the Australian Opera and Ballet Orchestra:
- Be good at what you do. (being able to sight read like a machine is beneficial)
- Be punctual.
- Don’t be a jerk.
There you have the three tenets of being a successful freelancer. But does that make us artists? Oxford defines art as “The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power”. A lawyer interprets the law, as does an accountant, and we interpret music. By this definition, we are in fact no more creative than a lawyer or accountant. Our musicianship is studied and based on years of learned reaction. We study various musical styles and historical approaches which we are then able to appropriate when necessary based on aural or visual cues. We are musical analysts. Perfectionists. Technicians. But “Artist” may well be a title too lofty for many of us. But yet we chose to make a career performing music, which is certainly an art form.
It may come as a surprise to hear that mastering a musical instrument is in fact less of a creative pursuit than a scientific one. In fact anyone who sets out to learn an instrument looking for a creative outlet may find themselves disappointed. The best musicians are precise, mathematical, analytical problem solvers. Music itself is filled with numbers, rhythms, divisions and subdivisions, processed in a millisecond and communicated through fingers, feet or voice. There is no music without maths, physics and analysis, and yet the purpose of music is not about communicating numbers, but human emotion. There is art in articulate communication, but the tools of communication can be learned and manipulated, according to a formula. It is therefore a science.
My conclusion is that in order to be called an artist, even though one might make a livelihood from an art form, they must create. It is possible to be entirely uncreative and be a highly successful musician. Whether one aspires to be an artist, or merely a musician, is an entirely different question.
RUE 
Well written indeed RUE , the science of artistic musicianship.
Looking forward to more from you.
This is indeed one interpretation of what musicians do but I disagree that ‘the best musicians are precise and mathematical’ as I believe you have missed the most important descriptor, heartfelt. You can be technically perfect and not engage an audience but add heartfelt and you can be technically incorrect and amazing.
Hi Sabine,
I agree fully that musicians must be heartfelt. Only a living, feeling human can possibly convey human emotion. A photographer can capture the essence of a moment, which may be very beautiful, but if the image is out of focus, fuzzy, badly composed, it can detract from the beauty of the moment being shared. The same an orator may have a heartfelt message they wish to deliver, but if they are not trained in delivery, or if they stumble around words, it detracts from the message, however heartfelt (a certain infamous American leader comes to mind. And perhaps a more recent Australian one). What I mean to say is that the technicality – the maths and physics that I’m talking about – is in order to convey the message more clearly. I agree that it is subservient to the emotion, and that what makes the greatest musician is not their technical brilliance alone, but the arsenal of tools they have to convey the story, both technical and emotional.
Having said that, I wrote this piece with Rossini and Tchaikovsky swirling around in my head. There are some instances where technicality itself can detract. Folk tunes never sound authentic if they are played precisely in tune with perfect vibrato so there are instances where the maths of music is even more subservient than usual to “heartfelt”.
Thanks for commenting Sabine!
The remarks on mathematics remind me of something that was said of Pierre Boulez, a mathematician of no light study early in life, this year at the birthday honors that were given to him by the Cleveland Orchestra. Pianist Joela Jones recalled a rehearsal where she was having difficulty playing a combination of two very different rhythmical patterns simultaneously, and Mr. Boulez effortlessly demonstrated the two patterns with gestures from his two hands. Other Orchestra members commented on the clarity and mathematical precision of his compositions too.
I fear, though, you may be a bit too, let us say, mathematically rigorous in narrowing the definition of artist to exclude performers. Consider the example of lawyers. They do not just interpret laws. They seek novel solutions to unusual problems but must do so without stretching the laws to the point that the solutions will fail. Compare that to a musical performer. One who deviates too much from what is most clearly in the score will be critiqued harshly by those familiar with the composition, just as one who gives a dry must mathematically precise performance will be unsuccessful, but nevertheless if two faithful and beautiful performances are notably different, have the two performers not brought their own artistry to the concerts?
Nice post. Glad to have seen it tweeted by ABC Classic FM.
Hi Virgil,
Your two performers have absolutely brought their own artistry to the concerts – and as a result will have brought the music of that composer to a much wider audience than one of them alone could have. I think of Lang Lang and Yundi Li who were marketed and almost pitted against each other as a kind of “yin” and “yang” by their recording company. DG I think.
I should clarify that my definition of artist does not exclude performers. Solo artists, singers, songwriters, composers must in fact be artists because they create. My exclusion is actually directed at freelance orchestral musicians like myself, who do not create. Our job is to turn up on the day, sometimes literally at a moments notice, and play the music. Whether the music happens to be Mahler or Beethoven is irrelevant. So finding myself (and my wife and friends) being able to make a living from performing and teaching our instruments, but not creating, was my focus in this piece. I am inspired by composers and musicians who are able to write and perform their own work. They are the ones who deserve to be called Artists.
Thanks for your comment, and for letting me know about the ABC tweet. Was a very pleasant surprise.
First of all, I have a definition of art and artists a little different from others. For me, art is the search for perfection and an artist is therefore by definition one who is seeking perfection. That doesn’t mean the artist finds it – it’s the seeking that is important. Therefore, technically you could even make dish-washing an art form. So it isn’t how well you play the music – a computer could do it better than we do but no one wants to listen to it – it’s how well you interpret it, how much of yourself you put into it, how much perfection you are seeking not only in the technical execution which gives you the means to express our humanity, spirituality, emotions, whatever, but in what you succeed in transmitting. Therefore it doesn’t matter if you are a free-lance musician or only play for yourself in your living room – an artist is an artist whether he gets paid for it or not. So don’t worry. You know why you play and what you are trying to do with the music. A great artist could play “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” and make anyone who listened him/her realize that they have heard something important and have had an artistic experience. A few years ago I went to a concert with my daughter (a violinist) who said afterwards that “we were in the presence of greatness.” She was absolutely right – it was Gil Shaham and he was playing a Brahms sonata, something within the technical reach of most violin students who can play Kreutzer. What was it that made his performance great? His search for the perfect transmission based on all the technical math, science, etc., you mentioned above. It’s spiritual, my friend, not scientific. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Good article. Thanks.