"5 star" albums and masterpiece.

For me:

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

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?

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!!)

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.

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?

I am not sure I understand your question.

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