# Artistry vs Mastery



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I feel like with lots of classical music, mastery over the instrument takes over artistry. I feel the best music combines artistry AND mastery. Examples in classical would be Clair de Lune and Gymnopedie No. 1. Miles Davis' albums on the corner, bitches brew, jack johnson and silent way also fit the bill.

The rock band Phish, in their improv, gets there too.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Artistry relies upon some level of creativity, imagination, original thinking. But mastery (technical accomplishment on/with one's medium) allows the artistry to reveal itself. A masterful pianist might be able to do extraordinary things with fingers on keys, but it might also prove dull to listen to, while one of genius-level artistry may prove little on the piano if he/she does not play it at all (though such a one might well come up with _imaginative_ use of the instrument).

The most accomplished performers are those who meld both artistry and mastery so that their limitations are few.

Classical musicians are somewhat tied to a script, often one written by an artistic master. (I think immediately of Liszt and the B Minor Sonata.) The primary artist (the composer) has done a lot of the work artistically (creatively) and rendered it with no holds on the mastery by way of the written score. It takes one of equal mastery to render the score into sound, or the composer's artistry may well be obscured. Of course, there is also interpretive artistry to consider. The secondary artist (the performer) may have such in varying degrees, which allows for a lesser or greater "opening up" of the musical idea.

For the best music making, I suspect the two (artistry and mastery) go hand in hand.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> Artistry relies upon some level of creativity, imagination, original thinking. But mastery (technical accomplishment on/with one's medium) allows the artistry to reveal itself. A masterful pianist might be able to do extraordinary things with fingers on keys, but it might also prove dull to listen to, while one of genius-level artistry may prove little on the piano if he/she does not play it at all (though such a one might well come up with _imaginative_ use of the instrument).
> 
> The most accomplished performers are those who meld both artistry and mastery so that their limitations are few.
> 
> ...


Yes, and I feel Mozart's Requiem could be the single greatest accomplishment of CM, it's certainly a contender! (Or, amongst the greats).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think mastery should be defined as high expressive quality, which leaves it open ended as to what it can and can not be. I think of Gould as a prime example.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Great musicianship, artistry is a combination of attributes, I don't see it as an either/or phenomenon...

I like to think of it in a similar vein to the old _YMCA_ triangle - _body, mind spirit_....of course, I don't use the religious overtones for the spirit leg of the triangle....for me great artistry is comprised of these three basic components -

*body* - this refers to all of the physical, mechanical aspects of performance - technique, tone, breathing, bowing, control, range, dynamics, etc, etc....whatever you are performing - you've got to be able to play it accurately and convincingly.

*mind *- this pertains to thorough understanding and practice of musical style - knowledge of the many different styles and modes of music - classical, modern jazz, rock, Broadway, whatever mode you are currently performing - you have to know and/or study the appropriate style - ie - Viennese Waltz has a distinctly different rhythmic feel from big band jazz, etc, etc...

*Spirit *- this is the heart of it, the "soul", if you will - the expression, the vision, the phrasing, the passion - the "balls" if you will....does your performance "communicate" with the audience - do they respond to what you are doing??

A great artist needs to excel in every one of these three components....


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I feel like with lots of classical music, mastery over the instrument takes over artistry


This is quite true; the technical aspect of playing takes priority. I hear it in auditions all the time. Whiz kids who have fantastic physical dexterity and play everything like a machine - perfect. But the understanding, the emotional element is sadly lacking. And guess what? a lot of the judges think that's all that matters, too. There are conductors I've worked with for whom absolute technical perfection is the goal leaving a deeper understanding or appreciation out of it. Maybe the artistic aspect just takes time to develop but then in some people it never does. For composers, focusing on the technical is deadly and we have 100 years of awful music to show for it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

A musician develops technique in order to be able to execute effortlessly and without thinking, using muscle memory, as perfectly as possible what he imagines in his mind. IOW, mastery serves artistry. It isn't either/or except in less talented musicians.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I feel like with lots of classical music, mastery over the instrument takes over artistry. I feel the best music combines artistry AND mastery. Examples in classical would be Clair de Lune and Gymnopedie No. 1. Miles Davis' albums on the corner, bitches brew, jack johnson and silent way also fit the bill.
> 
> The rock band Phish, in their improv, gets there too.


With classical music, I think the steady increase in the importance of recordings over live performance has had an important impact, including in the increasing priority given to technical "mastery" other artistic factors. This phenomenon is not new. When commercial electrical recording first appeared in the mid-1920s, the great pianist Arthur Rubinstein already was over 40 and had been performing in the world's major venues since childhood. He had never bothered with acoustical recording, but he immediately understood that the far greater fidelity of the new technology would permanently change the classical music world. He took a long sabbatical and devoted himself to improving his technique. He had always been an extraordinary natural talent, but like many in the pre-recording era, had never worried much about note-perfect performances. Remarkably, he was able to adapt to the higher technical standards of the new era.

Alas, some (myself included) believe the balance has tipped too far in the emphasis on technical 'perfection' (as if there is such a thing). Most of today's classical superstars can produce live performances very close indeed to the edited versions on their records. That's nice, but for me not the most important thing by a long shot.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> A musician develops technique in order to be able to execute effortlessly and without thinking, using muscle memory, as perfectly as possible what he imagines in his mind. IOW, mastery serves artistry. It isn't either/or except in less talented musicians.


yep, that pretty much sums it up for me. I have never fully understood alleged dichotomies between technical prowess and musicality. Imv it is precisely as SA says, in that mastery serves and underpins artistry. It is sometimes overlooked that mastery also _develops_ artistry.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

I am the Master ... you will OBEY me.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I feel like with lots of classical music, mastery over the instrument takes over artistry. I feel the best music combines artistry AND mastery. Examples in classical would be Clair de Lune and Gymnopedie No. 1. Miles Davis' albums on the corner, bitches brew, jack johnson and silent way also fit the bill.
> 
> The rock band Phish, in their improv, gets there too.


I've just been re-reading the late Andre Previn's memoirs of his Hollywood days. Here was a man who could do the lot - film music, jazz, classical, etc.. he also worked with musicians who could do the lot and was constantly amazed by their technical and artistic expertise that one day they could be playing a film score(at sight) another a Beethoven symphony, and follow that up with an evening playing at a jazz club or chamber music concert. Please don't confine artistry to a narrow band of experience.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

marlow said:


> I've just been re-reading the late Andre Previn's memoirs of his Hollywood days. Here was a man who could do the lot - film music, jazz, classical, etc.. he also worked with musicians who could do the lot and was constantly amazed by their technical and artistic expertise that one day they could be playing a film score(at sight) another a Beethoven symphony, and follow that up with an evening playing at a jazz club or chamber music concert. Please don't confine artistry to a narrow band of experience.


'No Minor Chords' ? A great read.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

To quote and paraphrase Wynton Marsalis, expression is the highest level of technical proficiency.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

progmatist said:


> To quote and paraphrase Wynton Marsalis, expression is the highest level of technical proficiency.


Well stated!!!


----------

