what is a masterpiece? or a great work?

[dko22]

another thread started to touch on this question and Kevin suggested it might be worth it's own entry. Is it possible to define either of the above and is there any point (if not, the thread will surely die a quick death! )? If so, what then is the difference?

I would tentatively suggest to set the ball rolling that a masterpiece is a work which is very highly accomplished and imaginative on a technical level but does not per se have to plumb the greatest depths. Whereas a Great Work must have something unique to say about the human condition even if it may have formal failings according to the parameters it sets for itself. What do members think?

[Joseph]

I have pondered these questions starting with my original reply in the previous post. Initially my thought was to simply quote Jorge Mario Bergoglio, "Who am I to judge?" But the more I think about it the more I believe we need more information. I feel we must go back hundreds of years and begin with defining things like apprentice, craftsman, journeyman, and master, and what components are involved with each level. We think of many works of art as masterpieces created by the person whose name we attach to it. When in fact common knowledge acknowledges they were created by teams of workers such as those already mentioned.

I read a poem this morning by Mary Oliver, a contemporary American poet and former Pulitzer Prize winner.  (I wonder, does that makes her a master and her works masterpieces?)  The poem is entitled The Man Who has many Answers from her collection, A THOUSAND MORNINGS. I'd love to share it with you but Ms. Oliver maintains tight copyright control over her work and I would not want to violate that choice.  A trip to your local library or favorite bookseller may be enough.  There is nothing specific in this poem regarding the questions posed in the subject line but I think it will help you ask more questions.  In my own opinion I feel time is overrated.  I have read novels with hundreds of pages and poems of three lines.  Each having the potential to be acclaimed, masterpiece.  Each also maintaining the possibility of being labeled, trash.
 
I fear I must return to the opinion expressed by JMB already quoted and hope the subjectivity of such an inquiry would not prevent someone from listening to a particular bit of music or hold anyone in contempt for expressing an opinion. For my masterpiece may not be yours . . .  Rules were devised to explain actions already partaken of, not the other way around.

[dko22]

some interesting points here, Zepposnonno. The Mary Oliver poem I found very wise and can actually rather identify with it myself. We do live in a world which has rather more answers than questions these days.

Time or length can indeed be overrated and I tend to prefer music as well as writing (whether creative or factual) to get straight to the point and stay there. Great work or masterpiece, time is not a factor in deciding. However in the realm of western classical music which is for the most part what this forum deals with, critical lists of the greatest works of all time will show an overall preference for larger forms. This may change over time but currently even where works may be individually small, they tend to build into a larger collection such as with piano nocturnes or a song cycle.

That different people have different ideas on what a masterpiece is obvious but that does not preclude having a healthy discussion. There may be a relatively small body of work which is regarded almost universally as being within this category -- I say almost because I cannot think of a single work which is universally so regarded or was when it was written-- you only need to look at the amount of invective hurled against something like Beethoven's 9th at the time. Look, on the other hand, at music written within the past 50 years or so and you will find there is virtually no consensus at all. With the public, minimalism in various forms wins overwhelmingly but most of the "Establishment" prefer works which stretch the boundaries in various ways beyond the traditions handed down since Baroque times. A third group, who are mostly sidelined and little known, are those who work within the classic/romantic tradition but try to develop an individual language within it. Perhaps a rare exception here might be James Macmillan who does appear in the bestseller list.

What's depressing is perhaps that works from none of these categories (which of course are of necessity somewhat generalised)are frequently performed. Get in a famous soloist and play a Beethoven or Tchaikovsky concerto and you can make money is the rationale in most concert halls these days. But this is a rather different point.

One of the objects of a music forum should surely be to express an opinion. It should go without saying that these may be warmly debated but that the holder of such opinions should never be held in contempt.

[Joseph]

Oct 4, 2017 7:53:30 GMT dko22 said:

One of the objects of a music forum should surely be to express an opinion. It should go without saying that these may be warmly debated but that the holder of such opinions should never be held in contempt.

wise words . . .

Regarding masterpieces, I wish I had a valid opinion but I don't.  I agree that throughout history evening-long pieces (and that in itself may have been the reason for lengthy compositions) were most often made up of shorter[again, subjective] pieces strung together . . . suites, symphonies, song cycles, etc.. Today we tend to have shorter attention spans as humans living in a world of instantaneous and overwhelming information.  That certainly factors into the equation.  We mostly cannot sit still long enough!  Still, many composers run on (and on and on and on - a sort of diarrhea of the ink pen) even today often with meaningless drivel.  So, subjectively speaking, something like Faure's Requiem is a masterpiece (and not terribly lengthy) but made of of all shorter pieces.  Then also Barber's Knoxville: Summer of 1915 touches me as a masterpiece, yet not very lengthy.  While in other works recognized as masterpieces the craft is obvious though I wonder how they would fare if they were programmed a bit (quite a bit actually) less regularly?

Joseph

[Deleted]

I think that to qualify as a
masterpiece, the composition must exhibit technical excellence and "plumb the depths" as you say, and it must say something that strikes a responsive chord in a new way with educated listeners.

[gavbrown]

I don't think everyone defines it the same. Satie's Gymno. #3 I consider to be a masterpiece, yet it is not technically very challenging.

[Joseph]

whoa boy, I thought I was done but Fred and Gav's comments intrigued me. Does something need to be technically challenging to be technically excellent? (I think I know the answer but I'll hold my tongue)

[dko22]

most mature Mozart for instance is technically excellent but not that technically challenging for a competent pianist (which I am not,alas). However I don't subscribe to the view that a large proportion of his works are masterpieces as they lack the sophistication and/or the emotional depth which my definition would require. Of course there are at minimum a dozen or so works, mainly from his final years, which deserve to be called both great and masterpieces and a good deal else which is enjoyable to listen to.

[dko22]

Oct 4, 2017 18:32:09 GMT Joseph said:

Regarding masterpieces, I wish I had a valid opinion but I don't.  I agree that throughout history evening-long pieces (and that in itself may have been the reason for lengthy compositions) were most often made up of shorter[again, subjective] pieces strung together . . . suites, symphonies, song cycles, etc..

It is of course true that longer pieces are made up of shorter sections or movements, often but not always separated by pauses. But for me the important thing is that these sections together make a whole and do not (or at least should not) have an independent life.