What is a "top musician," after all?

In the world of music, there is a term for "first-rate musicians. However, this concept of "first-rate" is terribly vague. Liszt may be "first-rate" on the piano, but I have never heard of him being able to play the guitar. Bach is "first-rate," but even if he could play the violin reasonably well, we never hear that he was a master castanet player. Mahler was a "first-rate" symphony writer, but whether he was actually that good a conductor is doubtful, considering the dissatisfaction of the orchestra members at the time. In this way, the question of what "first-rate" means slips away from our hands.

Then, what makes a "first-rate musician"? This is a surprisingly tricky question, and the further we proceed, the foggier it becomes. Is it technique? Compositional ability? Charisma in performance? Or personality? Is personality necessary to be "top-notch" in the first place? Where on earth should we draw the line for "first-rate"?

What is technical "first class"?

Take, for example, classical pianists. They boast of their astonishing technique and can play Chopin's etudes with a cool face, but whether this means that they are "top-notch" or not is not clear. This is because most pianists, no matter how good their technique, cannot compose. There are examples such as Rachmaninoff, who combines superb technique and compositional talent, but whether he is as "top-notch" as Bach or Mozart is a complicated question.

What about composers? Beethoven is definitely "first-rate. But while he was a master of the piano, he was not a great violin player. Wagner was an operatic genius, but it is difficult to say whether one would like to hear him play the piano. Chopin, on the other hand, was called the poet of the piano, but considering his style, it is highly doubtful that he would have been able to write a symphony.

To cite an even stranger example, in the jazz world, the ability to improvise is considered a sign of excellence. However, if Bach were to be revived today, it is difficult to answer the question of whether he would be able to improvise on the jazz piano.

Is the conductor "top-notch"?

So what about conductors? Karajan and Furtwängler are considered "first-rate. However, whether they are first-rate as "musicians" is another matter. They were geniuses in manipulating orchestras, but they did not leave symphonies of their own compositions to the world. I have never heard a symphony composed by Karajan, and although Furtwängler's works are available, even he would hesitate to compare them with those of Brahms.

More to the point, does a conductor need to be able to play an instrument? Or does he just have to look philosophical while waving a stick? No, in fact, when one can both conduct and compose, as Mozart and Mendelssohn did, this is already the perfection of a "musician. However, almost no one today can do both of those things perfectly.

After all, is the definition of "first-rate" defined by the times?

Let me bring up the subject of society and technology here. In the time of Bach and Mozart, "first-rate" meant, above all, being able to both compose and perform. In the 20th century, however, the profession of conductors was established, and they too came to be called "first-rate. Furthermore, as recording technology developed, pop singers came to be considered "first-rate. Freddie Mercury and Billy Irish were undoubtedly "first-rate" in their time, but it is impossible to compare them on the same footing as Bach.

As technological advances change the very definition of music, the concept of "top-notch" will also change. Perhaps 50 years from now, AI will be composing music, and humans will only be singing or waving their fingers. And then, the "first-class" may shift to the skill of how well one can manipulate AI.

Does personality matter?

Finally, I would like to consider the question of whether "character" is relevant for a first-rate musician. Throughout history, there have been many composers who, by all accounts, had difficult personalities. Wagner was arrogant and debt-ridden, Stravinsky was cynical, and Schumann was emotionally unstable. Yet few would dispute that they were "first-rate" as musicians.

But then, is a person "first-rate" if he or she has a good personality? Composers who are mild-mannered and sociable are often buried in history. Rather, those with some kind of strong personality or trouble tend to be more famous in later generations. This may be a phenomenon common to all artists, not just musicians.

Conclusion: What is first class?

After all, the definition of a "first-rate musician" is not fixed. Its meaning keeps changing according to the demands of the times, culture, and society. One thing is certain, however: those who are called "top-notch" are usually overwhelmingly talented in some respect, and have the ability to convince those around them.

They may not be able to play the piano, write a symphony, compose lyrics, or have a terrible personality, but if they are exceptional in any one thing, they will be first-rate. In this light, "first-rate" is not something that is perfect, but something that is lacking, which is why it may be able to win people's hearts and minds.