What defines a masterpiece?

limeyrob wrote: el dingo wrote: cobb2 wrote: My rule is simple- must be able to play it after 10 years and still get the same buzz from it.   Yeah - agree. Even 30+ years in my case, and there are a couple of late 60s/early 70s albums I would rate as masterpieces to this day. No examples, too subjective.   Right now I reckon I'll rate Pendragon's Pure as a masterpiece in 10 years time. Ask me in 2018, though.   Agree to some extent but doesn't this rule mean that only albums pre 1998 (or 1999 in a few weeks time) can receive a masterpiece rating from members aged 28 or more. Sorry for assuming that you have to be 18 to listen to prog - but you get my point.

Well, I think an 18 year old can call Foxtrot or Close to the Edge or whatever, a masterpiece because they've been out for so long and have already been christened that by so many listeners.  As to newer stuff, I think 5 years is a more reasonable assessment.  But again, that 5 years is not 5 years from the time listener X hears it, but 5 years from release.

It IS possible for something brand new to be considered a masterpiece, but I think time (again, roughly 5 years) is required for it to be really considered that.

Then, of course, you have classical music and the art world where most masterpieces were not considered anything special by their contemporaries, but only much later after the artist or composer were dead.  So it's also possible that something all of us alive now consider crap, could be hailed as a great masterpiece 100 years from now.

Tricky subject. Overall though, as far as this site goes, it's totally subjective.  Plus, with the 5 star system, I feel like I need to give certain albums 5 stars, even though I may loose interest in them over time.

A progressive rock masterpiece is a record that is amazing on a level or some levels.

A masterpiece??? a masterPIECE!!!!!!!

I suppose that you could have a personal 'masterpiece'  - something that is definitive to you as an individual. However no matter what I paint it will never be regarded as a masterpiece - the Mona Lisa however is regarded by art critics and effectionados all over the world as a masterpiece.

About Yes- I personally view Relayer as their masterpiece.

A masterpiece is an album that has a heavy impact on the listener, an album that evokes strong emotions, an album that makes the world and the very principles of existence appear to the listener in a brand new light.

Or it may just be an album with really cool songs on it.

A masterpiece should be the best work of a certain artist, period. I don't know what makes a masterpiece and I think that everybody has a different answer. E.g., most people seems to worship "Close to the Edge", but in my opinion "The Yes Album" is the ultimate Yes masterpiece.

whatever it is I don't think a 'masterpiece' is synonymous with perfect ..  i.e. here at PA, 5 stars indicates masterpiece, but I've awarded 5 to albums that have imperfect moments, Pekka Pohjola's debut for one

  

I think it needs many keyboard soloz

Very, very few should get the "masterpiece" label, maybe the top 5%. 

A masterpiece should break new ground in some way, or be the best of its peer group, or both.  Beyond that it should move you emotionally nearly every time you play it.  It should be a profound listening experience, defined by the listener of course.  It should be much more than just the latest enjoyable album one buys. 

There's LOTS of good albums out there (the most common kind), there's still LOTS of excellent albums, but there should be but only a few masterpieces IMHO. 

Bottom line, the masterpieces are the 5% of your collection that you can take with you to the desert island. 
(The other 95% of your collection will be picked up and delivered to my garage)