# The Difference between a Masterpiece and A "Minor Masterpiece"



## ProudSquire (Nov 30, 2011)

During one of my many late night vigils, which involves a lot of introspection and a great deal of nonsense, I stumbled upon something that I couldn't quite understand. While reading some articles online regarding Hummel's third piano concerto, I've come to learn that it was "assessed" as a minor masterpiece rather than an actual masterpiece. So, I asked myself, well, what's the difference between the two? Unfortunately I was unable to answer that question myself and I was hoping that you guys might have an answer. 

TPS


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

If I were to take Mozart as an example, I would consider his symphony #29 (K201) to be a minor masterpiece while his symphony #40 (K550) is definitely a masterpiece. In this case it might have to do with the relative sizes of the pieces, the scale of inventiveness of each and the historical influences of the compositions.

Not an easy question, though.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

I believe that is a subjective judgement. It is rather like the old theater saw that there are no minor parts, only minor actors.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

It is probably defined by them-that's-in-the-know as a subjective judgement with wide acceptance. I did eventually come to the conclusion that a masterpiece of music is one that can retain my appreciation through a mediocre performance. That is still too subjective for public consumption though.


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

I would say the difference is usually in the person who is listening to it


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2012)

Indeed!

Maybe what we should be asking is "what's the difference between a master listener and an apprentice listener"!

But even there.

How about just dispense with this sort of thinking entirely. None of it affects (none of it should affect) our enjoyment of any particular piece, and that's all that should matter.

(Just a side note about language. The OP contains a good example of how to conceal important information with passive voice. "_t was 'assessed' as a minor masterpiece...." Indeed. And the question to ask in all such circumstances is this: Who? Who did the assessing?)_


----------



## Bagnew (Jan 22, 2012)

I'd say that a minor masterpiece is in a minor key.....
In all seriousness, though, I'd agree that it all depends on the listener - a piece highly esteemed by one person may be detested by another


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

Agree with the above assessment! To call something a "Minor Masterpiece" is like calling some calamity a "Minor Disaster". What? Not "good enough to be a disaster??"

Are we at the point where the "greatness" scale lacks *granularity *-

Bad - Fine - Good - Great - Masterpiece

Maybe I'm missing a term in the sequence, but I don't think it's "Major Good", or "Minor Bad"...


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

A lowered third.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

In terms of the official theory I'd take most seriously, it's the consensus view. Eg. consensus of listeners, musicians, scholars as to what pieces are more significant than others. I try to avoid using the word masterpiece, but I do use it, esp. if I'm very excited about a piece and love it a lot. Which talks to the issue of subjective assessment that people have said above.

The issue is that we know what we know now, in this point in time. In Beethoven's time, Hummel may have been seen as small fry by comparison. Maybe every other composer was to a degree. But now, we see Hummel (& others like Weber as well) as having an important influence on innovators coming later (or overlapping with his lifetime) such as Chopin & Liszt. Of course it doesn't negate Beethoven's huge influence, but it kind of gives us a bigger picture of music at that time.

So that's how I see it. Some "minor" or "less important" works did have a good degree of impact on music of the time and beyond. With 200 years passing between now and the Hummel example, we have a clearer picture of his place in the music of his time and in the history of music generally...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

The difference between a masterpiece and a minor masterpiece is that one of them is called a masterpiece and the other is called a minor masterpiece. 

Arbitrary nonsense.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Both are artificial constructs people cling to to trick themselves into thinking they're not just mammals living a totally subjective reality.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Is that a paradox? If reality is totally subjective, there can't be things such as mammals, right?


----------

