Ultimately, the question "is X art?" just perpetuates commodity fetishism since the art in question only exists because of human labor. And as we know, commodities don't need to be physical objects. A service or a performance could itself be a commodity.

The real question should be "is Y an artist in the context of X?" For a piano recital, the vast majority of people would say that both the composer who wrote the piece and the pianist who is actually playing the piece are artists in their own right. Some people might include the audience listening to the piece (the audience's role in piano recitals is obscured due to bourgeois cultural norms of reducing the audience to passive listener, but it's far more obvious in music with call-and-response). I personally would include the workers that make the instruments and perhaps even the musical "peripherals" like the piano bench as artists since the piano recital wouldn't exist without them actually making it possible through their labor.

Perhaps you might think it's a reach to consider a janitor who keeps the recital hall clean an artist, but if we consider a film production, I would absolutely consider stunt people and workers who labor towards constructing sets and the catering crew as much of artists as the director and writers and "the talent." It's honestly elitism to suggest otherwise. Stunt people put their bodies on the line to make an entire genre of film watchable, but some bigshot celebrity who phones it in for a fat paycheck is more of an artist than them?

As for " "is Y an artist in the context of X?" implies that you've already decided X is art," I subscribe to a fuzzy definition of art that most people use in practice (non-utilitarian product, not bad craftsmanship ie talent, made by humans, societal consensus, needs an audience to appreciate the art, has aesthetic qualities that lead to an emotional reaction with the audience). Not everything needs a precise definition nor an all-encompassing criterion.