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.

It makes me want to click past the WARNING on the 5-star button

While I was mostly kidding my post was full of truth. A 4 star album is solid and highly impressive, a 5 star album send shivers down my spine at every turn and I never want to review it because I just want to have more and more of it. It seems like the quicker I want to review something the less I like it and the more I want to be done with it. Not always the case, but most of my 5 star albums will have 15+ listens before I review it, even if I could express my thoughts clearly with much less than that.

Everybody is taking my original 10 years post too seriously- this is just my personal litmus test. Experience has shown there are far too many releases that sound absolutely brilliant and even a review after 20 or listens may result in the 5 star accolade, but their appeal fades over time, until they become boring and never hit the platter again. To me this is not a masterpiece, just a good piece. A lot of reviews here are based on those initial impressions, where a good piece absolutely takes you on a ride (for a time).

Edited by cobb2 - December 10 2008 at 20:12

crimson87 wrote: In your opinion:   What are the principal atributes a masterpiece must have? I can't define them, but I know when i'm in front of one. I may like it or not, it may be in Symphonic or in Avant, but there's an instinct developed with the years that tells you when you are in front of one. Do you consider that few albums deserve this label? Does the Human intelect and inspiration has limits? I think not. Then why should we limit something that is produced by the human intelect sensitivity and inspiration as a musical masterpiece? Which is the genre that produces the most of them? All of them, not talking only about Prog sub-genres, I'm talking in general, may be in Classical as Tanheusser, in POP as Rumors, in Jazz as Bitches Brew or in Prog as Foxtrot, there's not a determined genre for talent. Iván

Atavachron wrote: 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 can't really say for sure what it is, but I can tell you a few things it DOESN'T have to be.

Virtuosic (is that even a word?) - It doesn't need the best musicians playing the toughest parts. Sometimes simpler is better.
Popularity: Just because it sold a lot, doesn't make it a masterpiece. I mean, 50 Cent sells a lot of records...
Critical Praise: Just because the critics consider it "a masterpiece" doesn't make it one.
Innovative: Often this the criteria critics use to define masterpieces. However, in many cases, the band stole from underground bands and just happened to be the one to breakthrough with that style. Then they get considered the one that invented that style, which may or may not have been true.

Just some comments from me. And one last thing. Another important thing is timelessness. When bands like Porcupine Tree start talking about "X-boxes" on their albums, I immediately lose interest.

Well,

   to say that every person has different criteria for masterpiece status, or that different art forms may have different criteria, or that a masterpiece is defined only by the emotional response it produces is not answering the question.

   This idea has to have specific criteria, that will certainly include many persons ideas, aspects of art in general, and human feelings. But, this is just the beginning...

    A progressive rock masterpiece has to compare favorably with masterpieces of other art forms, as well as rise above the commonplace, however revered, in its own genre.

   What do the Mona Lisa, the Rite of Spring, F L Wright's Fallingwater, Picasso's Guernica, the film version of Gone with the Wind, Beethoven's 5th Symphony, and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past, have in common?

   Firstly, they are all ICONIC. If you want to refer to a book, movie or painting, you might use one of these works.

   Second, they are all important over time. A Masterpiece lasts long enough that, even if it's value and importance was not immediately recognized, it became clear and persisted.

   Third, the technical innovations of each one were subservient to the larger expressive purpose of the makers. Chops aren't enough, you gotta SAY something, and it had better be important.

   So, progressive rock is a little young as a genre to get to these levels. Think of the album or song that means jazz or country to you. Think of the most interestingly designed automobile or appliance. Think of the book that you read that changed your life. Then, think, "why did these items mean what they did to me?" Techniques, forms, content, presentation, and a clear and vital reflection of a time and place are the qualities that masterpieces share. I don't want to influence anyone's choice of this or that progrock work as a masterpiece, but only to provide better criteria with which to judge.

   good listening to you all, and, isn't it odd that there are no prog Christmas/holiday songs? well, perhaps not so odd...

It needs tons of things. It needs to be emotional, yet also be dark, and have heavier themes. Some examples are Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence, Stranger In Your Soul, Supper's Ready, Octavarium, and The Great Nothing. In general, prog metal has the most songs that I love, though Symphonic Prog isn't far behind.

88melter wrote: Well,    to say that every person has different criteria for masterpiece status, or that different art forms may have different criteria, or that a masterpiece is defined only by the emotional response it produces is not answering the question.    This idea has to have specific criteria, that will certainly include many persons ideas, aspects of art in general, and human feelings. But, this is just the beginning...     A progressive rock masterpiece has to compare favorably with masterpieces of other art forms, as well as rise above the commonplace, however revered, in its own genre.    What do the Mona Lisa, the Rite of Spring, F L Wright's Fallingwater, Picasso's Guernica, the film version of Gone with the Wind, Beethoven's 5th Symphony, and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past, have in common?    Firstly, they are all ICONIC. If you want to refer to a book, movie or painting, you might use one of these works.    Second, they are all important over time. A Masterpiece lasts long enough that, even if it's value and importance was not immediately recognized, it became clear and persisted.    Third, the technical innovations of each one were subservient to the larger expressive purpose of the makers. Chops aren't enough, you gotta SAY something, and it had better be important.    So, progressive rock is a little young as a genre to get to these levels. Think of the album or song that means jazz or country to you. Think of the most interestingly designed automobile or appliance. Think of the book that you read that changed your life. Then, think, "why did these items mean what they did to me?" Techniques, forms, content, presentation, and a clear and vital reflection of a time and place are the qualities that masterpieces share. I don't want to influence anyone's choice of this or that progrock work as a masterpiece, but only to provide better criteria with which to judge.    good listening to you all, and, isn't it odd that there are no prog Christmas/holiday songs? well, perhaps not so odd...