# What is a Masterpiece?



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

What makes a particular composition a "masterpiece?" Does it simply _sound_ right? Is it wholly subjective? Or is there an objective element, that the composition is forward-thinking, _avant-garde_, stylistically precise? That not one single note was unnecessary?

Abstract: Is it a composition that is unparalleled in its time? Transcends generations after it? Or is it a composition that is respected and appreciated by peers that aspire to such work? Do composers ever see one of their works--their magnum opus--as a "masterpiece," or simply another collection of papers?

Concrete: What pieces are "masterpieces" in your mind?


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Some relevant defintions:

_Oxford_: "masterpiece" is a work of outstanding artistry, skill; an artist's best piece of work

_M-W_: a work done with extraordinary skill; a supreme intellectual or artistic achievement

_Dictionary.com_: anything done with masterly skill; a piece made by a person aspiring to the rank of a master in some craft


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Avey said:


> _Oxford_: "masterpiece" is a work of outstanding artistry, skill; *an artist's best piece of work*


so, Bach (etc) only wrote ONE masterpiece? 

I don't think so!


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

For me, a masterpiece is simply a piece of music which is very good. Some would say it needs to be enduring to be a masterpiece, but I think if you listen to the same masterpiece 50 times in a row, it will lose a lot of its steam. Usually, a masterpiece should have something unique to offer. For example, among Bach's keyboard pieces, there are many great pieces, but the English suites and French suites nearly offer the same thing in slightly different forms (they are all very good, definitely). By contrast, the Goldberg Variations are a theme & variations of a quality which can hardly be found anywhere else, and so, they are masterpieces, perhaps all 30 of them.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

shangoyal said:


> For me, *a masterpiece is simply a piece of music which is very good*. Some would say it needs to be enduring to be a masterpiece, but I think if you listen to the same masterpiece 50 times in a row, it will lose a lot of its steam. Usually, a masterpiece should have something unique to offer. For example, among Bach's keyboard pieces, there are many great pieces, but the English suites and French suites nearly offer the same thing in slightly different forms (*they are all very good, *definitely). By contrast, the Goldberg Variations are a theme & variations of a quality which can hardly be found anywhere else, and so, they are masterpieces, perhaps all 30 of them.


Hmm!

English suites = very good = *not* masterpieces

Goldbergs = very good = masterpieces

I suspect a claification is required?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Hmm!
> 
> English suites = very good = *not* masterpieces
> 
> ...


Goldbergs = very, _very _good

the extra "very" puts it over the top.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> so, Bach (etc) only wrote ONE masterpiece?
> 
> I don't think so!


That's why I go for the more craftsman-like def:
"anything done with masterly skill; a piece made by a person aspiring to the rank of a master in some craft"

There is 'a line,' I'm sure moveable even at the higher end among the cognoscenti, but there are a few works which seem flawlessly crafted, and consummate something or others, 'expressions of,' or sometimes something which -- even from an artist who has produced so many masterworks (Stravinsky would be another, so many) -- seems to quintessentially 'sum it all up.'

Many a Stravinsky work leaves the listener with a feeling of not only something monumental, but even when it is over, there is some lingering quality that a monument has been built, still tangibly 'with us.'

I tend to think of 'nothing much more could be said in that particular mode within the medium,' or at least, that dialogue is complete, it covered all the territory to a degree leaving nowhere further to go with it, after which any further discussion on the topic after that would be merely redundant. (Like Schubert wondering if anyone had anything worth saying after Beethoven -- turns out many did, of course.)

Two master craftsmen each design and make a table:
Table one is of a quality most would recognize, and say, "That is a _very_ nice table. It is _very_ well executed and very good looking." 
Table two has the same qualities, but in addition something about its proportions and a turn of the line in the legs seems consummately right, as if the piece is animate, or actually - dumb object it is, that it has an anima all its own, and is 'beautiful.' 
The second table is more likely to be called a masterpiece.

The line will never be fully defined... but something which is _more_ complete, inevitable and final-sounding than that which is not is usually a work which gets the tag.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

What is a masterpiece? That is a quintessential question in the philosophy of art. And one which has no easy answer, nor any definitive one.

In essence, a masterpiece must be a representative form of a particular art genre, but will likely possess a uniqueness that transcends the very form it represents. A masterpiece almost certainly exhibits an advanced or high quality of "craftsmanship", one dependent upon learning and skill, but it will likely incorporate that more enigmatic trait of "creativity" which cannot be taught or learned or really even practiced, but yet remains recognizable when encountered, providing a sort of "awe" factor. A masterpiece is certainly the best work of a great artist, but not every "best work" is a masterpiece if the artist himself lacks "greatness", which remains another highly undefinable quality. And an artist can certainly produce more than one masterpiece, though some produce none at all. There will always remain something essentially undefinable about a masterpiece because such definition is dependent upon so many other terms which remain equally undefinable -- art, greatness, quality. What we as a species must accept is that, in the final analysis, a masterpiece is something that can only be _felt_ (by emotions which are themselves numinous and undefinable) rather than rationally quantified. It remains an ineffable (indescribable, incommunicable) essence, in the end, which designates a masterpiece. Such designation gives validity to the old saw "I know it when I see it", for in some significant way we know a masterpiece when we encounter it, even though description of it defies our language -- which is actually what the purpose of art is for: to present that which words alone cannot render. So ... how do we render into words that which is unrenderable, let alone a masterpiece of the unrenderable?

Do artist's _know_ when they create a masterpiece? I suspect that sometimes they do. For example, Dante set out to write the greatest book ever written. By definition that would be a masterpiece. Dante labored (for personal reasons, one of which was to be welcomed as a hero back to his home city of Florence from which he was banished for political reasons) for a decade on his work, which was crafted utilizing all known knowledge of the poet's day. The skill level of the poem is absolutely astounding, just on technical poetic grounds; but when one considers the plot, the metaphors, the allegorical sense, the encyclopedic scope of the work, one can hardly hesitate in proclaiming it a masterpiece. Which is all Dante ever set out to write, knowing that only by composing the greatest book of all time (founded on the Bible, Homer and Virgil, the world's previous "greatest books") would he accomplish his mission of being restored to power in Florence. Alas, he died shortly after completing the book, which was quite soon after his death recognized for the masterpiece it was. And the battle for Dante's bones continues. Florence would love to have those bones buried in a Florentine crypt, but Ravenna claims the actual remains. Dante succeeded.

I suspect that most masterpieces are simply results of the artist's working hard at what he does. Perhaps an artist remains oblivious of his actual skill level until a masterpiece is produced. The artist may be more inclined to complete his artwork than to worry about its intrinsic quality as a masterpiece. And of course society at large has something to do with the designation of masterpieces; perhaps no artist can create a masterpiece without the recognition of his audience. Whatever those enigmatic "rules" for what defines a masterpiece are, it is the public voice that supplies them, even if unknowingly. Again, any discussion here depends upon that which cannot be totally rationalized, which is the beauty (another irrationality) of art. (And this sidesteps the issue of whether one person may validly hold that a certain work is a masterpiece while another can validly hold that it is not.)

One might hail Mahler's Eighth Symphony as "a masterpiece". I do. But I compare it rationally to Havergal Brian's _Gothic _Symphony. The Brian work is huge and sprawling and incorporates orchestral/choral forces akin to those of Mahler's Eighth, and on the pages of both works the spread of black notes on white paper has a marked resemblance. Yet, I hesitate in assigning the Brian work the nomer of "masterpiece", especially when sided by the Mahler Eighth. Again, I am at a loss for words to rationalize this _feeling_, but a _feeling_ it remains. There is some mysterious element of awe that strikes me when hearing the Mahler that I just don't experience from hearing the _Gothic_, though I recognize in the Brian symphony many fine elements of artistry.

Yet, in another sense, the _Gothic _Symphony may well be Havergal Brian's masterpiece. Does this sound confusing?

And just such a barrier of rational language must always affect or define or color our appreciation of what is and is not "a masterpiece".


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

shangoyal said:


> For me, a masterpiece is simply a piece of music which is very good. Some would say it needs to be enduring to be a masterpiece...


A lot of music is "very good". But is that really all that is needed to define "a masterpiece"?

I posted previously on this topic, but I wanted to single out your term "enduring", for I did not touch upon it in my previous post, yet I believe it is a term of merit in defining what a masterpiece is. We generally suppose that the best of art endures because of its intrinsic quality; but we also designate as great art sometimes that which simply _has_ endured -- such as ancient scuptures -- against which we have few representative comparisons. So, a painting or sculpture, or a piece of music, or a playscript can endure and be recognized as poor art, good art, great art, or a masterpiece. But what about a theatre production? Can a director's stage work be described as "a masterpiece", though the work will not live on past its show dates and the stage will be struck and the costumes and props put away, the production never to be seen again? Can a piano performance be designated "a masterpiece"? Do we recognize a Beethoven late sonata as a masterpiece because of its intrinsic quality on paper, or because it has been masterfully played? If we only hear the 32nd sonata ever poorly played, will we be as compelled to view it as a masterpiece?

We on this forum spend much time and effort defending this or that performance of a work as "the best". Are we designating performances as masterpieces when we do so? Must not we also recognize performance artistry for the qualities of a masterpiece? Can we not validly talk of an acting masterpiece, or a dancing masterpiece, or a singing masterpiece?

As I stated in my first post on this thread, language itself gets in the way of our emotional responses to art, and often it resides in those emotions to define for us what is a masterpiece and what is merely great or good art.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

"This is a masterpiece" = "I really like this piece"


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Avey said:


> What makes a particular composition a "masterpiece?" Does it simply _sound_ right? Is it wholly subjective? Or is there an objective element, that the composition is forward-thinking, _avant-garde_, stylistically precise? That not one single note was unnecessary?
> 
> Abstract: Is it a composition that is unparalleled in its time? Transcends generations after it? Or is it a composition that is respected and appreciated by peers that aspire to such work? Do composers ever see one of their works--their magnum opus--as a "masterpiece," or simply another collection of papers?
> 
> Concrete: What pieces are "masterpieces" in your mind?


Answering the thread title: You'll know it when you hear it.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

Ukko said:


> Answering the thread title: You'll know it when you hear it.


But isnt Wagners music better than it sounds? ...dont know if he made any Masterpieces however


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

stevens said:


> But isnt Wagners music better than it sounds? ...dont know if he made any Masterpieces however


In the final analysis--as Ukko so pithily put it--it is up to you, as an individual listener, to ultimately make that determination--or not--as the case may be.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

samurai said:


> In the final analysis--as Ukko so pithily put it--it is up to you, as an individual listener, to ultimately make that determination--or not--as the case may be.


Yes..! "This is a masterpiece" = "I really like this piece"


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ukko said:


> Answering the thread title: You'll know it when you hear it.


Lol. Depending upon the individual's taste and their ability to discern.

For some, the score from the Legend of Zelda is a masterpiece: for those who think so, I'm sure they're right


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I really do not know anymore.

At onetime I thought I did but I was mistaken.

I read threads like this because I am curious what other people think.

I gave up tying to figure out the answer to this question because I kept running into great art that wasn't and ungreat art that was.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Lol. Depending upon the individual's taste and their ability to discern.
> 
> For some, the score from the Legend of Zelda is a masterpiece: for those who think so, I'm sure they're right


Should the criteria used in this determination be of a "subjective" or "objective" nature? Indeed, is it even possible for us as humans to be able to separate out and isolate the individual components of each? And, were it possible to do so, does it actually matter?


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Hmm!
> 
> English suites = very good = *not* masterpieces
> 
> ...


Hmm, maybe. I wanted to say that the work needs to emerge from all the others because of its individuality. I suspect all works which we remember started something that might have been seen as idiosyncratic.

Gertrude Stein has said something fitting in this regard:

"If you do not remember while you are writing, it may seem confused to others but actually it is clear and eventually that clarity will be clear, that is what a master-piece is, but if you remember while you are writing it will seem clear at the time to any one but the clarity will go out of it that is what a master-piece is not."


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

shangoyal said:


> Hmm, maybe. I wanted to say that the work needs to emerge from all the others because of its individuality. I suspect all works which we remember started something that might have been seen as idiosyncratic.
> 
> Gertrude Stein has said something fitting in this regard:
> 
> "If you do not remember while you are writing, it may seem confused to others but actually it is clear and eventually that clarity will be clear, that is what a master-piece is, but if you remember while you are writing it will seem clear at the time to any one but the clarity will go out of it that is what a master-piece is not."


Hah. I think Gerty lacks clarity there.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Ukko said:


> Hah. I think Gerty lacks clarity there.


I think she's only talking about the *inspiration* part of writing, not the *work* and *practice* part.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

The one true masterpiece:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=santana+shreds[/video]

Ah sounds from the very mouth of God... :lol:


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> The one true masterpiece:
> 
> [video]https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=santana+shreds[/video]
> 
> Ah sounds from the very mouth of God... :lol:


Listen to this! It made may day...week


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

samurai said:


> Should the criteria used in this determination be of a "subjective" or "objective" nature? Indeed, is it even possible for us as humans to be able to separate out and isolate the individual components of each? And, were it possible to do so, does it actually matter?


If, via the subjective we get both _Missa Solemnis_ & the _Suite from the Legend of Zelda_ as equally being masterpieces -- and if you're alright with that....


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

No need to define what a masterpiece is. In reality, concensus will more or less recognise when it was composed/created, and or over time. A masterpiece has an inherent quality about it that no weak attempt at defining it will do it any justice. Similr to the opposite about mediocre works, as per my signature "industyr will supply its deficiency". Pure and simpl.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I'm not sure you understand your quote - maybe you do but I can't tell from how you use it. Let's see it in full:

_"You must have no dependence on your genius. If you have great talents, industry will improve them; if you have but moderate abilities, industry will supply their deficiency. Nothing is denied to well directed labour; nothing is to be obtained without it. Not to enter into metaphysical discussions on the nature or essence of genius, I will venture to assert, that assiduity unabated by difficulty, and a disposition eagerly directed to the object of its pursuit, will produce effects similar to those which some call the result of natural powers."_

So if you, with but moderate abilities, work really hard, you'll get the same results as genius, capiche?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I have read all 7 of Reynold's discourses. Reynolds was a great classical teacher. Experienced, well loved by his patrons, hard working, and understood by his contemporaries and art lovers today. A clear example of a classical "masterpiece" himself! Pure and simple.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

OK that's cool, still not sure how you apply the quote to masterpieces tho


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> I'm not sure you understand your quote - maybe you do but I can't tell from how you use it. Let's see it in full:
> 
> _"You must have no dependence on your genius. If you have great talents, industry will improve them; if you have but moderate abilities, industry will supply their deficiency. Nothing is denied to well directed labour; nothing is to be obtained without it. Not to enter into metaphysical discussions on the nature or essence of genius, I will venture to assert, that assiduity unabated by difficulty, and a disposition eagerly directed to the object of its pursuit, will produce effects similar to those which some call the result of natural powers."_
> 
> So if you, with but moderate abilities, work really hard, you'll get the same results as genius, capiche?


That's what the guy said, although I am at complete odds with any and all statements like them... usually statements from the true geniuses, and not those who put in the same industry but remain second and third-class non-genius composers

Its all rather Calvinist and predestination oriented, like, there are only so many souls who will go to heaven, no matter how hard you try to be good and worthy, ergo since we don't know, go for it anyway -- but not everyone who does and succeeds will go to heaven, you know 

On the other hand, if you do not apply yourself to the utmost, you won't even get close to finding out. BUT, industry exactly in the same amounts and application that the geniuses have put it _will not necessarily turn you works magically into works of genius._


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Ukko said:


> Answering the thread title: You'll know it when you hear it.


Of course, in order to "know it" when you hear it, you have to have some basis for the judgment, which in the end is essentially subjective anyhow. But, if the only piece of music you have ever heard is Bach's "Goldberg Variations" (which many will proclaim a certain masterpiece) you are in now position to proclaim it a masterpiece, since you have no basis by which to judge it. Thus, those with a wider, deeper experience of listening to music are likely in a better position to assign what they hear as good or not so good. And still, they need more than wide listening experience; they also need some sort of objective criteria on which to base their judgment. The two (subjective and objective) work hand in hand in assessment of quality of any sort.

If one's musical experience is limited to rap and heavy metal, could he ever agree with those who proclaim the "Goldberg Variations" a masterpiece if he were to hear for the first time the Bach piece? There is a good possibility that such a listener would find the "Goldberg" dull and lackluster. His objective criteria for judging such a piece haven't been established in any manner.

So ... just to hear and to know proves a fallacy. Yet, the concept has validity depending upon additional factors.

For a society at large to make such judgments about quality and masterpieces, the society relies upon its values, which form part of the objective criteria for assessing the work. One society may hold different criteria from another society, and thus neither will agree on what is a masterpiece and what is not. The above mentioned rap/heavy metal society will assume masterpieces within its range of understanding, just as the "classical crowd" on this Forum will assume masterpieces by way of its range of understanding, which is likely quite different from the other. Neither, by the way, is wrong in its judgments. The judgments are simply the result of different experiences.

Which is why it is probably better to accept a whole society's assessment of quality than a single individual's. The society as a whole has a longer, richer experience than any single individual can have. But a suppressed society will lack fullness of experience that will allow for true validity in judging quality. Yet, can any society really be so open that all experiences may enter into the shared criteria necessary for judging quality?

What I have found intriguing during my half century of listening to and studying music is that, though I have heard tens of thousands of works by a thousand plus composers, were I to pick those I judge the top masterpieces, I would create a list of works familiar to you all -- a list containing such pieces as Bach's B minor Mass, Mozart's D minor Concerto, Beethoven's Fifth, Schubert's Quintet in C, and Mahler's Ninth Symphony. I suggest that there would be few surprises on my list, because society is generally right and has already selected certain composers and certain works for appreciation of their quality.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

What could me a masterpiece for one person can be be garbage to another ...

What could be garbage to one can be a masterpiece to the other.

Definitive of "masterpiece" is _an outstanding work or craft_. It is the individuals taste in that style that makes it or breaks it for them. Some howl over Webern as being masterpieces ... some don't.

Kh ♫


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Krummhorn said:


> What could me a masterpiece for one person can be be garbage to another ...
> 
> What could be garbage to one can be a masterpiece to the other.
> 
> ...


I suggest that a "masterpiece" is exactly what all of us say it is, or some of us, or one of us. And it's a valid judgment only to those considering it so.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

stevens said:


> "This is a masterpiece" = "I really like this piece"


translation for current everyday conversational usage, and as found in a billion blogs


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I suggest that a "masterpiece" is exactly what all of us say it is, or some of us, or one of us. And it's a valid judgment only to those considering it so.


the teflon definition.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The exact and correct definition. :lol:

Alternative: Let the experts decide, or PetrB (if there is, in fact, a difference).


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Great stuff. Appreciate the responses.

What about some concrete examples? What is the _FIRST_ composition you think of when you think of "masterpiece," if you ever invoke the label?

Amazingly, as much as I love *Beethoven's* late quartets, _Missa Solemnis_, or *Schubert's* _Quintet_, or Mahler's [insert #] symphony -- I feel like I need to contribute on a deeper level, like point out works not often cited in the common performance repetoire or classical discussions. Still, they may be well-known works.

*Erich Korngold's* Symphonic Serenade - Sincerely, other than *Dvorak's* cello concerto, I have never experienced a more precise and profound composition. Not one note is spared or redundant.

*Ravel's* Piano Trio - I can only speculate as to what possessed him when he penned this.

*Brahms* Clarinet Quintet -- Maybe that violates the "obvious" code, but seriously, like, it is what it is.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The exact and correct definition. :lol:
> 
> Alternative: Let the experts decide, or PetrB (if there is, in fact, a difference).


The experts _have decided._ That is already done -- and many times over and readily accessible to any and all.

The regrettable tendency on fora is that their members seem to want to perpetually re-invent that wheel, instead of going to several dictionaries and long-respected tomes on music.

But: 
empirical fan running by the seat of their pants on their very subjective personal tastes and experience, 
or
those with some or a lot of training and more conscious exercise in trying for a more objective approach, 
or
mega-cognoscenti with a lifetime of intense training, practice and a honed sense of getting nearest to objective,

From any of the above, enough care enough, or don't care enough, to commit to some concrete answer vs. a teflon-slick waffle. Call them all crazy, or less mousey, I'll leave it to any and all readers to decide.

I'm in both despair and laughter at all these threads which inquire about 'what is a masterpiece,' who is the greatest, etc. They are set up by people to elicit comments and they very much expect of the participants that they take a stand and / or make choices.

The moment a few actually take a stand and / or make choices, define 'masterpiece,' commit to naming whom they think is the greatest, etc., then along come those others -- whining about those choices, that their feelings about a composer have been hurt because for them, against the results, their guy is No. 21, not No. 1... and so forth.

Really, ranking seems to be an extreme enthusiasm around here, perhaps the number one sport, maybe, with most of the members in general.

Defining "what is a masterpiece" is dead-center to ranking, and then people waffle and whine while participating.

Maybe all such polls and questions having to do with ratings and ranking, how to discern best from better, etc. should just be barred as subjects not allowed on TC.

That way, lot of people's feelings, I think, would be spared. What they would do to substitute getting their adrenaline up is anyone's guess -- hang-gliding? Base-jumping?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Avey said:


> Great stuff. Appreciate the responses.
> 
> What about some concrete examples? What is the _FIRST_ composition you think of when you think of "masterpiece," if you ever invoke the label?


Sorry, I'm not willing to commit the twenty or more minutes it would take to include such a list, that quickly plucked from my head, for it is many pieces across the time-line of music history and naming more than a few, one always has that nagging feeling you have most unjustly overlooked several, at least.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> The experts _have decided._ That is already done -- and many times over and readily accessible to any and all.


Are you speaking of the experts who called Beethoven's late quartets "indecipherable uncorrected horrors"? Or those who said, "Haydn has nothing to teach us"? Experts for sure, and many many more are quoted -- a whole book full -- in Slonimsky's "Dictionary of Musical Invective". Or are you speaking only of today's "experts," who are undoubtedly far more level-headed and wiser, since people have gotten so much smarter over the last century or two?

Sorry, I find it difficult to grovel in front of the Shrine of Experts!


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2014)

I should really go back to the days of defaulting on PetrB's judgement.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Are you speaking of the experts who called Beethoven's late quartets "indecipherable uncorrected horrors"? Or those who said, "Haydn has nothing to teach us"? Experts for sure, and many many more are quoted -- a whole book full -- in Slonimsky's "Dictionary of Musical Invective".
> Sorry, I find it difficult to grovel in front of the Shrine of Experts!


Well, choose the one tome intended to be an anthology of the most extreme, thickest, least perceptive, most arch conservative retro-reactive critics and critiques in history -- all of them risible in the light of a later arrived at consensus, and there you go.

_I hope you do know Slonimsky chose the most off opinions about what was even when they were written, considered by the majority, public and critics alike, as the new great stuff, and the very premise of his "Dictionary of Musical Invective" is to demonstrate how dreadful are a number of critics in any 'contemporary' setting, i.e. their short-sightedness?_ Of course you do!

However, the plethora of quotes extolling the virtues of Beethoven you have stockpiled and have constantly at the ready and have used often enough in TC postings shows you are quite happy to "Go To Those Experts," in a trice -- yea, perhaps even grovelingly, with joy, because they support your opinion 

But I get it, debate 101a, you take an opposed stance to slam an opponent or opinion you don't care for or agree with... and come up with a citation to back it up.

But of course what I meant is to look these things up, and you and I both know _from experience_ that you can find diametrically opposed criticisms of the same works, and the reader is then still on their own in sorting it all out. This leaves it as 'every man for himself.'

Me, I would rather sort through the critiques of the pros, knowing they will wildly disagree, because the majority of them know better how to speak about music with less adjectival gushing. Indeed, the tip-off that the critic you quoted was probably never much of a good one is the language all around something and everything else but music, and having a glaring absence of calm assessments amounting to a breakdown of the piece for the reader, whatever the opinion is.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

All of Beethoven's SQ were masterpieces. No doubt. Pure and simple.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> But of course what I meant is to look these things up, and you and I both know _from experience_ that you can find diametrically opposed criticisms of the same works, and the reader is then still on their own in sorting it all out. This leaves it as 'every man for himself.'


Well, yes. Which is pretty much my point. Whatever opinion *we* may have on the "masterpiece status" of a work, we can find supporting or opposing opinions from the so-called experts. Does it then become a "count the experts" game? That sounds suspiciously like our own polls, which some here so roundly condemn!


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The regrettable tendency on fora is that their *members seem to want to perpetually re-invent that wheel, instead of going to several dictionaries and long-respected tomes of music*.
> ***
> I'm in both despair and laughter at all these threads which inquire about 'what is a masterpiece,' who is the greatest, etc. They are *set up by people to elicit comments and they very much expect of the participants that they take a stand and / or make choices.*
> 
> ...


Well, I am not taking personal offense--though I may come off that way--but I must say, I find this (1) extremely inimical to TalkClassical and (2) somewhat nonsensical.

While all the preference for ranking and subsequent critique may be true and all too persistent here, a veteran like yourself has been here for quite some time. So, like, either you just ignore all those posts or you actually find some entertainment in reading them. Myself, I do not partake in ranking posts, but I enjoy reading them. Otherwise, really, I would find myself often annoyed and frustrated, and turning into a curmudgeon like, well, we can insert our obvious name here.

My point being that I am a bit uncomfortable with you taking issue with the "ranking" or "greatest" posts. Any thread can be turned into--i.e. altered through response/comment--a wholly unique and profound debate; you do not need to simply list your _ten favorite cocktails_. And some of these threads--may I say, my own--are not set up like a "greatest" or "ranking" thread. Yet it gets characterized as that. Odd.

Further, of course I begin a thread to "elicit comments" for others to "take a stand." What other purpose would my words have here? To vent? To spew my own opinion for unsuspecting readers?

Certainly, I can go and read a book, a blog, or Wikipedia for "critical" commentary on a composition; I know these things. What I want here, why I post threads like these is for opinion from _all of you_. I do not want "experts" or "long-respected tomes of music." I want TC _experts_ and TC members' commentary. This is a community I do not have living next door to me or available by phone or through a hyperlink. I post because I want your "comments" and "stand" and "choices."

I do not mean to disparage your response here, but I am sincerely lost as to what you are trying to convey with your post.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I should really go back to the days of defaulting on PetrB's judgement.


LOL. while I _may_ have impeccable taste, that may not be _your _impeccable taste. It is every man for himself, bro!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Avey said:


> Well, I am not taking personal offense--though I may come off that way--but I must say, I find this (1) extremely inimical to TalkClassical and (2) somewhat nonsensical.
> 
> While all a preference for ranking and subsequent critique may be true and all too persistent here, a veteran like yourself has been here for quite some time. So, like, either you just ignore all those posts or you actually find some entertainment in reading them. Myself, I do not partake in ranking posts, but I enjoy reading them. Otherwise, really, I would find myself often annoyed and frustrated, and turning into a curmudgeon like, well, we can insert our obvious name here.
> 
> My point being that I am a bit uncomfortable with you taking issue with the "ranking" or "greatest" posts.


My point is why poll to rank, rate, why try to re-define, when both a plethora of "official" and "the people's versions" of those abound, and what happens in these threads is virtually a replication of any of those other results, one at a time or cumulative.

Ergo what is the point of yet another rate or redefine type post? Your post, at least, included a few definitions for respondents to keep in mind. Even then, I don't get the interest in forty subjectively torqued definitions of "masterpiece," or mentions of minor works which are masterpieces to someone because the work had great meaning for them at a particularly hard time in their life <g> or so much of that sort of post it seems all rate / rank / redefine polls and posts seem to attract like sugar attracts flies.

Second point. The more polls, it appears that many (not always) are just too damned lazy or simply just not interested enough to construct a couple of complete sentences which would much better stimulate _and indicate a direction for_ comment and discussion.

The question is, what is wrong, or so unpopular, about a few well-stated things as an OP, with an indication or directive about the general direction and tone the poster hopes to set up?

P.s. there is only so much, some percent, on any forum, of polls and repeat after repeat duplications of those polls, and certain predictable content of OPs which occur nearly as regularly as a scheduled bus run, where those who are members begin to lose interest and those on the outside looking in who are pondering joining decide no, and go away. -- I don't know, is it 1/5th or 1/4th or a greater fraction of all posts before one decides it is no longer worth combing through to find that which interests? --


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> My point is why poll to rank, rate, why try to re-define, when both a plethora of "official" and "the people's versions" of those abound


1. Please ignore the thread then.

2. Not a poll.

3. I want "abound"-ing responses. If everyone cited the same source or answered similarly then this would be an awfully dull and insipid forum.



PetrB said:


> *Ergo what is the point of yet another rate or redefine type post?*


Because I did not read the last one. And people still find time to respond.



PetrB said:


> *I don't get the interest in forty subjectively torqued definitions of "masterpiece," or mentions of minor works which are masterpieces to someone because the work had great meaning for them at a particularly hard time in their life*


That is fair. Your opinion. But why crash the party? I, and I assume others, thoroughly enjoy hearing personal stories and connections about compositions. Generally, I like subjectivity. I like forums.



PetrB said:


> The more polls, it appears that many (not always) are just too damned lazy or simply just not interested enough to construct a couple of complete sentences which would much better stimulate _and indicate a direction for_ comment and discussion.


#NotAPoll. But I do agree that thread openings are often generic and unstimulating. In response, I impress questions, several in fact, for discussion, and avoid opinion forthright. But maybe you are still calling my openings "lazy" or uninteresting, too. In that case, I will await your thread.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> My point is why poll to rank, rate, why try to re-define, when both a plethora of "official" and "the people's versions" of those abound...


Perhaps because some people find it fun? As the Puritans said, "God forbid somebody, somewhere, should be dancing!"


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Every TC posting is an invite to any member of the club. It cannot, unless it is a site-approved private group, be qualified as a party 'for only those who agree.' LOL. 

TC has not yet eliminated all the spontaneous spice out of the realm of possibility.

But 'we' are clearly bored with each other re: this post, so bowing out. Y'all have a great time.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

This is all getting a bit much for me, so I am going to offer an example of a masterpiece.
Mozart Piano Concerto 23
Why? Because when I listen to it I am left with a feeling that is not there after any of the others. This particular one has qualities that seem to transcend the others, and they are all pretty damned good.
All subjective I know but for me a masterpiece stands out above a body of work and marks a moment of white heat


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

shangoyal said:


> Some would say it needs to be enduring to be a masterpiece, but I think if you listen to the same masterpiece 50 times in a row, it will lose a lot of its steam.


One may "tire" of a piece after 50 consecutive times in a row, but still know, or think it is still a masterpiece and often go back to throughout one's life. A "masterpiece" is still great after 2000 listenings, hence being a masterpiece whether defined objectively or subjectively.

It's too subjective to nail down as a definition. I do believe there are "objective" masterpieces such as Bach's Mass in B minor, Beethoven's 9th, or Verdi's Requiem (among a plethora of others), AND there are also more "subjective" masterpieces that become much more personal in definition such as (for me) Wieniawski's Legende or Chopin's Nocturne #8 Op. 27.

I believe one can be objective in a critique of music whether or not one likes the music. I "enjoy" only about 1/2 of Bartok's music, but am in objective awe of most of it. He is arguably the greatest composer of the 20th century (definitely one of them). I don't think one has to necessarily be a "fan" of his music to acknowledge that.

I am not a Champagne fan, but because of Sommelier training I can recognize a "fine" champagne vs an "ok" champagne. I will however, choose a scotch over both.

V


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2014)

Did anyone ask about the difference between 'masterpiece' and 'masterwork'?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Hmm!
> 
> English suites = very good = *not* masterpieces
> 
> ...


The English Suites are also not very English.

Rooney never listens to them.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Did anyone ask about the difference between 'masterpiece' and 'masterwork'?


Are you asking?

If so, I'll bite. I believe one consciously sets out to make a "masterwork." Whether or not that becomes a "masterpiece" is anyone's guess.

V


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Varick said:


> I do believe there are "objective" masterpieces such as Bach's Mass in B minor, Beethoven's 9th, or Verdi's Requiem (among a plethora of others)


Curious why you say these are objective? Is it because _generally_ people agree these are great--from casual listeners to musicologists? Or that those pieces were highly regarded by peers, and remain highly regarded today? That is still a subjective view, is it not?

My point being that I am uncertain we can _objectively_ use any label. We may use a label _generally_, that like _most_ people agree on something. But we are necessarily dealing with opinion here, not fact, so I do not think objective could ever be used.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2014)

Varick said:


> Are you asking?
> 
> If so, I'll bite. I believe one consciously sets out to make a "masterwork." Whether or not that becomes a "masterpiece" is anyone's guess.
> 
> V


I mean that as I hadn't read all the posts in the thread, I didn't want to repeat what had already been said. I assume that there is a difference. My presumption is that a composer can write lots of masterpieces - compositions that meet the standard expected of a master, but only one masterwork - their most significant achievement.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I mean that as I hadn't read all the posts in the thread, I didn't want to repeat what had already been said. I assume that there is a difference. My presumption is that a composer can write lots of masterpieces - compositions that meet the standard expected of a master, but only one masterwork - their most significant achievement.


I'll vote you a LIKE for this post, but I leave it to you to tell us which of Bach's, Mozart's, and Beethoven's many masterpieces is each composer's masterwork.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> I'll vote you a LIKE for this post, but I leave it to you to tell us which of Bach's, Mozart's, and Beethoven's many masterpieces is each composer's masterwork.


I couldn't, since I'm unfamiliar with most of their works. The best I can offer is that if Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th symphonies are masterpieces, the 9th is the masterwork.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

In German, "Meister" (as in "Meistersinger") is also the term for the highest qualification in certain crafts and trades. You start as an apprentice and finish as a journeyman. Then, you can take the master's exam. If you pass it, you are allowed to run your own business and train apprentices.

Personally, I think apply the term masterwork applies well to pieces that have no apparent flaws. That doesn't mean that these works must be milestones (another wonderful term) in the history of music. Neither Cherubini's symphony, nor Ravel's string quartet have changed the course of music the way Tristan or Sacre did, but they're nonetheless masterworks. They did not transcend their respective forms, but they did, I feel, fill out the forms perfectly.

In this sense, perhaps, classical music's full of masterworks. But that would not be such an incredible thing, would it?


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I couldn't, since I'm unfamiliar with most of their works. The best I can offer is that if Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th symphonies are masterpieces, the 9th is the masterwork.


Your "masterwork" definition is no different than "masterpiece," in my view. And that is because it is still subjective, so any one piece can be called his "masterwork" and another just a "masterpiece" depending on who is labeling them.

So, with that said, I say you are wrong, and the _Missa Solemnis_ is the master[xxxx]. Aha!


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2014)

Avey said:


> Your "masterwork" definition is no different than "masterpiece," in my view. And that is because it is still subjective, so any one piece can be called his "masterwork" and another just a "masterpiece" depending on who is labeling them.
> 
> So, with that said, I say you are wrong, and the _Missa Solemnis_ is the master[xxxx]. Aha!


Then I guess I didn't make the distinction clear enough, but it may be I'm talking rubbish anyway, so I'll not pursue it.


----------

