Do you call yourself an Artist?

I think that I don't really understand what you're asking. Are you saying that a 'composer' is not an 'artist?' So - are you talking about Beethoven as being an 'artist' when he performed or conducted, but 'composer' the rest of the time? Or is all this just a weird definition of what an 'artist' is?

So - if doing everything yourself makes you an artist, then Joshua Bell is an 'artist' but the LA Phil has no 'artists' playing within it? Does that make sense to you?

 

Okay - that is what you're saying. I just disagree completely then.

Carl Verheyen is an artist on the guitar. He doesn't suddenly cease being one when he plays on someone's record, or when he plays on a film, or when he sidelines on a gig. He doesn't become some kind of different artist when he's playing with Supertramp. He doesn't become an artist when he plays his solo works. If he plays two notes on a record, I'll bet you that they're the two best notes he could play in that situation. Because he's an artist.

So - if you have something that sounds terrible when you master it yourself, you're more of an artist than if you let a professional do it and sound good? I call BS.

 

I don't like using words like "artist" and for quite some time I disliked the word "composer". Whenever someone is labeled as an "artist", whoever is attaching the label is trying to elevate his music to some kind of "higher level"; an artist is often untouchable to a lot of criticism and is always recognized on a different level than normal musician, by definition. There are a lot of different skills that can be developed in music, and a lot of people become proficient at different aspects of music making, be it playing an instrument, composing, producing, [...]. Is any of these disciplines more "noble" than the others? I don't think so, people do what they like to do, and if they do it enough, they're gonna be good at it eventually.

Was Schubert an artist? I don't know. We can spend days trying to put arbitrary labels on him, but that doesn't change a single note of the music that he composed. I think that it's safe to say that he was very good and that he could write good music. I don't know about "divine moments and pure beauty", because I find some of his music boring, so the issue here is that we have to take into account subjectivity. He was certainly in control of the craft and he was one of the best among his peers; but I would say that his compositions DO NOT have any added value because you say that he is an "artist". It becomes circlejerky at that point; he was a only a man with a skill, like an architect would be, or an engineer, or whatever else.

Another problem with calling someone an "artist" is that it saves him/her to any kind of valid criticism. An example: if you say that a particular Beethoven's sonata sucks compared to some others, there are thousands of people that are ready to prove you wrong because he was a "true genius/artist", and that you don't understand it, and blah blah blah. Of course some of his compositions are not as good as his best works, as he was basically writing all the time! Of course some of his compositional choices were subpar, because you can't be on fire 24/7. He was not infallible. Is something automatically "good" (or better) because some "artist" did it, regardless of the actual quality of the product? Of course not! It's probable that it might be good if the dude has a positive track record, but you wouldn't take anything he does at face value.

I found that a lot of people use the word "composer" the same way, as if it elevates what they write. And this created a useless mystic aura around the word "composer" that shouldn't ever exist. By my definition, every person that tries to put 2 notes together as an attempt of a creative effort IS a composer. It doesn't matter the instrument used, or the genre played. Now, how good is someone's music? That is another question altogether, and we can try to value each attempt separately.

By the same token, in my book everyone is an artist, or nobody is. It doesn't help ANYONE if we try to draw an arbitrary line. Let's judge the music by focussing on the music.

"Is that singer an artist? Because he doesn't write his own music!" - does it matter? Will he sing better if people called him an "artist"? Is it more important to be a singer or to write your own music? Does playing the violin make you better than the guy that plays the accordion? (if yes or no, says who?)

Let's focus on what's important. Labels are not important.

EDIT: I think that my comment came across harsher than I meant it to be. This is just my opinion and I don't certainly believe I hold the absolute truth in this topic.

 

If you are in this business to make a living, which I assume everybody here is, then 99.99% of the time you are a composer, a craftsman; a designer of music to fit the requirements of another person's project. When that music is so unique that it transcends that purpose and finds a life outside, maybe you can call yourself an artist. When you make music that is created to stand on it's own without concern for selling it as it's primary motivation, and is unique and personal, maybe you can call yourself an artist. I think the moniker is used too freely, particularly in the US.

 

Does it matter? Nobody either cares nor is affected by anybody calling themselves anything.

 

The definition actually explains very quickly what I was trying to say in thousands of words. I definitely don't have a way with words

It shouldn't matter, but as I tried to explain above, sometimes it affects the way some composers are perceived in my opinion. It's very common for the laymen to assign meaningless labels such as "artist", "genius", [...], which are often reused by actual composers to build a self-validating circlejerk of their work. As a very cheap example, academia (and academic music) immediately comes to mind.
If one tries to use it as an arbitrary line of someone's skill, then I think that the usage of the word becomes toxic, as subjectivity/ignorance comes into the frame.

Maybe the things that angers me here is that some composers often use it as a kind of appeal to authority (particularly in academia), and some laymen use it from a state of total ignorance.

I hope that what I tried to explain is clear, and that this post also makes sense (it's quite late here ). Maybe you're right though, and nobody actually cares. And you're definitely right that it shouldn't matter.

 

I'm a hack and an imposter trying to become a person who writes music that people like. Anything past that is up to the ten people who actually get to listen to it.