"5 star" albums and masterpiece.

I am not sure I understand your question.

Edited by Snow Dog - September 01 2010 at 06:12

O666, I think it is safe to say that if someone considers an album worthy of a 5star rating, then they also consider it a Masterpiece. ProgArchives tries to steer us to think that way, as their definition of 5-star = Masterpiece:
" Essential: a masterpiece of progressive rock music"

I think maybe you're looking at the weighted average of ratings? Some malcontents will hate Pink Floyd, or Dark Side of the Moon, so they'll give it a 1-star, making the overall AVERAGE of an album less the 5-star. That doesn't mean it is not a Masterpiece.

Basically, a 5-star album is a perfect album, excellent in song writing, musicianship, production, etc.-- it is a Masterpiece of the genre. 5-star = Masterpiece.

Does that sound right? Is there a particular album or example on ProgArchives with a rating you're struggling with?

Nathaniel -- I did something similar with Frost*'s 2008 "Experiments in Mass Appeal". I loved the album, thought it was the best thing that came out in 2008, so I gave it a 5-star rating. But it's not a "Masterpiece", and I regretted my rating as soon as I made it. It's a good album, maybe a GREAT album, but 4-star would have covered that:
" Excellent addition to any prog rock music collection"

Generally, when I'm perusing reviews, I pay special attention when someone gives it a 5-star or 4-star. So I think it's ok to reserve 5-star for Masterpieces only.

EnderEd wrote: O666, I think it is safe to say that if someone considers an album worthy of a 5star rating, then they also consider it a Masterpiece. ProgArchives tries to steer us to think that way, as their definition of 5-star = Masterpiece: " Essential: a masterpiece of progressive rock music" I think maybe you're looking at the weighted average of ratings? Some malcontents will hate Pink Floyd, or Dark Side of the Moon, so they'll give it a 1-star, making the overall AVERAGE of an album less the 5-star. That doesn't mean it is not a Masterpiece. Basically, a 5-star album is a perfect album, excellent in song writing, musicianship, production, etc.-- it is a Masterpiece of the genre. 5-star = Masterpiece. Does that sound right? Is there a particular album or example on ProgArchives with a rating you're struggling with?

50% Yes.  "Dark side.." is masterpiece but you can find albums with higher average rate!! and these aren't masterpiece. You undrestand me well but I search for ONE THING. I think  masterpiece have one strange thing and I cant explain it. I search for help to find this "ONE THING". I dont believe all 5 star albums are masterpiece and I think reviewer who rate 5 star to many albums,  know many of these 5 star albums arent masterpiece. Please help me to undrestand that ONE THING.( maybe 2 or 3 things!!)

O666 wrote: I dont believe all 5 star albums are masterpiece and I think reviewer who rate 5 star to many albums,  know many of these 5 star albums arent masterpiece. Please help me to undrestand that ONE THING.( maybe 2 or 3 things!!)

Agreed. Music lovers (me too) like to promote their favorites, so sometimes too readily 5-star them.

Before I take a stab at the ONE (or 2 or 3) things, please understand that music, like all arts, is an aesthetic phenomenon, therefore incredibly subject to subjectivism . The incredible 20th century composer, Aaron Copland, coined a phrase "the gifted listener", meaning, like a trained wine connoisseur, one who is able to discern distinctions in the composition moreso than the average person. That ain't me, for sure. As I said before, I know much of my favorite music would not be considered "Masterpiece" status. (I learned from a college roommate that when someone is able to make a distinction between what they consider a "favorite" and what they consider a "best", pay attention-- they're at least trying to be discerning beyond personal preference...)

OK-- a stab at "Masterpiece"?

1) Flawless (take almost anything Bach/Mozart here)
2) Rapturous - demanding of admirable attention; transporting; ravishing
3) Enduring - its 'greatness' is not temporal, but recognized across generations (I like to ask myself, Will I be listening to this with as much affection 10 years from now?)
4) Recognized - not so much "popular", but that a significant percentage of listeners (not just 'fans') recognize it as "above and beyond"

Does that work?

Thank you Ed for your list. I agree with that but this list about musical theory and taste. I think music have different side. I dont know how call this side and what word suitable for my mean. I call thst "spritual". Spritual side of music is very important too and in many cases this side may creat Masterpiece. For example Pink Floyd's "The Wall". I want compare "The Wall" and Mahavishnu's "Birds of Fire". I know its not good compare but I try to explain my mean. I want compare musicians one by one. John McLaughlin is very faster and he have better technique. This isn't about my taste or opinion. This is a fact. I die for Dave gilmour but I'm sure John is better guitarist.  Billy Cobham is very better than Mason too. Laird and Hammer better than Waters and Wright. I repeat that I know I can't compare 2 different genres but I dont have another option. Is Mahavishnu  greater than Pink Floyd? Is Birds of Fire better than The Wall? NO. The Wall is masterpiece and Birds of Fire is masterpiece too. I try to say Technique,Musician ship and these kind of parameters never make Masterpiece. They make Perfect or Great music. I know many Mahavishnu fans say Birds of Fire is masterpiece. OK I agree. But why? I think we must change point of view and search for spritual reasons. I hope you undrestand me. In your list you write about "Enduring". I want to know how musicians make Enduring music, Thanks

For me:

I don;t like having the word "masterpiece" in the description (nor the essential or excellent addition attributes that refer to all collections). It's too subjective, and I don't want to rate something a masterpiece, say Yes' Close to the Edge, really high just because others think it a masterpiece. For me, that's a good album, but not that great.  One person's masterpiece can be another's piece of kaka. What's essential to me will not be essential to another.

I look at it a little like this:

5 Stars: An essential album to my collection, and one of my favourites in its category. Also what I consider to be the act's best work (the band's masterpiece, but that is problematic since I can think of cases where acts have releases several albums that I think superb). I might describe the album as sublime, mind-blowing, and or revelatory.

4 Stars: An album I consider really excellent, and a great one for it's category, but one I find sub-sublime. Not a desert island pick.

3 Stars: Good to very good albums of its category.

2 Stars: Mediocre (less than good to quite poor -- for its category)

1 Star: Really bad to I find this definitely poor.  Amongst the dregs of its category.

I think it's important to compare it to the perceived quality of others of its category rather an all of progressive rock (as well as compare it to other albums by the act); however, one could say that masterpiece should transcend category expectations and be essential to any well-rounded progressive music collection rather than just Prog, I'd say).  One person may hate chamber rock (or be unfamiliar with it) and vote a highly thought of album by people who are familiar with such music by, say, Art Zoyd, low, but I think a familiarity with the scenes is important for ratings purposes. With so-called masterpieces, I guess one should be able to say that even if someone will not like the style of music, it deserves respect as amongst the best of its ilk in the rater's opinion, and those who want well-rounded collections (as well as fans of its category) would be advised to hear it.

Sorry if I'm not answering the question, but I wasn't really sure what the question is.

I don't believe in handing out masterpiece status to albums just because they are largely regarded as masterpieces, nor do I believe in penalizing albums because they are obscure. While one can bring in a level of objectivity into ones frameworks of analysis, the ultimate score will be very subjective (most of the time, at least).


Edited by Logan - September 01 2010 at 12:53

Masterpiece is a BIG WORD. Yes. Any thing have own definition. I can't say "I only enjoy Kafka's books" because it mean that Kafka write books JUST for enjoy!!! I agree many POP music make for enjoy but we have serious music,books and other "art related" and we must use best words to define our thoughts and senses.Musical products produce for several purposes. Many musicians release songs and albums for money like many writers and ... I dont talk about this kind of music or this side of it. I focus to artistic side of music and I start this topic for this mean. ART is big. I believe many of musics isn't ART. I think many of POP music have good compose, orchestrasion,arrangment and these kind of properties but they make for "enjoy" and "money". I dont think music like " DUN's Eros" made for money!!!  I mean "MAKE" is different to "CREATE" and I talk about CREATE,

Masterpiece is:

• the most outstanding work of a creative artist or craftsman
• an outstanding achievement
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I'd give 5 stars to such an album.