# Defining 'acknowledged masterpiece'



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

What should the criteria be before we describe a work as an acknowledged masterpiece?


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

If it somehow ends up in a academic music syllabus


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

quietfire said:


> If it somehow ends up in a academic music syllabus


But that wouldn't be the opinion of a limited number of individuals wouldn't it?


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

janxharris said:


> But that wouldn't be the opinion of a limited number of individuals wouldn't it?


Better than the uninformed majority.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I don't think there can be a definition. A work has to be popular and thought to be 'good' by many people. How many? It's all vague. One would expect 'acknowledged masterpieces' to appear regularly in the top ten of radio music stations - to be performed often in prestigious concerts - to be used as irritating music while you wait for your phone call to be handled. If you mention the work in a room full of ordinary people, at least half of the assemblage should nod their heads. 

But it's always going to be open to debate and objection.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

quietfire said:


> Better than the uninformed majority.


Any such claim would remain subjective opinion - especially when we consider the abstract qualities of music.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> I don't think there can be a definition. A work has to be popular and thought to be 'good' by many people. How many? It's all vague. One would expect 'acknowledged masterpieces' to appear regularly in the top ten of radio music stations - to be performed often in prestigious concerts - to be used as irritating music while you wait for your phone call to be handled. If you mention the work in a room full of ordinary people, at least half of the assemblage should nod their heads.
> 
> But it's always going to be open to debate and objection.


Sounds fair - though perhaps top 100 rather than top 10...

It should be said that just because a work isn't thus far described as a masterpiece, it doesn't follow that it wont be in the future. There are plenty of such examples.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Sounds fair - though perhaps top 100 rather than top 10...
> 
> It should be said that just because a work isn't thus far described as a masterpiece, it doesn't follow that it wont be in the future. There are plenty of such examples.


Absolutely! :tiphat:


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Any such claim would remain subjective opinion - especially when we consider the abstract qualities of music.


Subjective in the right direction. And if you still insist on saying that right direction is subjective, then I insist that what you said and will say is subjective too.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

quietfire said:


> Subjective in the right direction. And if you still insist on saying that right direction is subjective, then I insist that what you said and will say is subjective too.


Why isn't this elitism?


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Why isn't this elitism?


It is. Deal with it.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

quietfire said:


> Better than the uninformed majority.


That "uniformed majority" tends to have a strange way of winning in the end.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

quietfire said:


> It is. Deal with it.


Perhaps if the majority of posters on this forum accepted that such an elite could determine which works were masterpieces then I might do as you suggest .


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think where the piece has logical sense (i think this can be an objective criteria, but too complex to be able to prove) and makes a strong impression aurally, or has memorable themes are qualities of so-called masterpieces from what I noticed. Also if the piece has a tight structure.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

"Acknowledged masterpiece" pretty clearly means acknowledged as a masterpiece by people who are competent to judge.

Accusations of elitism are beside the point. There are plenty of people (in fact most people) who couldn't tell Brahms from Beethoven. It doesn't matter whether or not they acknowledge that Beethoven's late quartets are masterpieces, because their views don't count.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

"Acknowledged" tends to refer to a strong consensus critically.

Personally, whether highly regarded critically or not, a good overall description of what I would consider an all-time masterpiece could be:

_Exhibiting emotional or conceptual content with such extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to permanently distinguish itself._

All the greatest art seems to fundamentally follow this criteria.


----------

