What Is a Masterpiece of Progressive ?

Guldbamsen wrote: I think it is a very slippery slope, when one gets too focused on the top lists, and starts wondering why that one magnificent record one loves so dearly, isn´t there. It isn´t to say, that it doesn´t belong there, but when you start falling in the pedestal trap, like a lot of people do - also outside PA, the music suddenly turns into some kind of sport. Like the Idols show and what have you not, where music is treated like a tournament, and the ones who usually win, is the kind of person who can sing a billion notes - emulate Mariah Carey down to the t, and furthermore looks like a barbie-doll. How would the music scene today have looked like, if things were the same back when Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, Neil Young, David Bowie and a truckload of other respected artists started out? None of those mentioned were really singers, in fact you could call them anti-singers compared to the sport singers of today, but they had something unique - and ideas that helped spawn most of what we hear today. They wouldn´t have chance in hell today, if we´d treat them the same way we treat those in Idols. If we start treating music like you see a lot of television shows do at the moment - they are doing this in Scandinavia as well, - I´m afraid the future will have no Dylans, Yes, Bowies, Floyds - no real progress and imagination or whatever...  I am not saying the prog scene resembles that scenario yet, although we have our fair share of polls and suspicious threads evolving around the "greatest", but if we are not careful - the music we love so dearly, will take us down that sporty road and become something quantifiable and something you can award a gold medal. This is of course exaggerating a bit, but the key point here is: there are no the greatest - nothing that´s the best, or something along those lines. There´s a lot of music in PA, which I think rival the top 100, but yet are no way near it. That´s because these albums are obscure, and didn´t have the success like Close to the Edge or Dark side of the Moon. The one thing you can do, and for me this is the whole reason of being here, - is to write reviews about music you think others should hear - or you might think has gotten a bad rep, or maybe it is just unfairly obscure. Please don´t turn music into sports!

That's the whole point of having those discussions. All the Poll stuff about TOP Albums, is a just a game to start a discussion about the music we love. There is some bands that are not in the Top 100 and should be there, and i know it's important to let others discover those bands, but it doesn't mean that we're taking the "sporty road". We are in a world of competition, numbers but deep inside of us we have the real feeling  of what's is a masterpiece. It's not perfection, it's someting close that move you emotionally. Or as someone has just said, that "blows you away"

Wikipedia helped me out in answering this. It is a "creation that has been given much critical praise, especially one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career or to a work of outstanding creativity, skill or workmanship."

I think it's an album that you don't just enjoy, but stirs something else inside you when you listen to it. That's why I think the 'masterpiece' tag is personally subjective.

rogerthat wrote: wilmon91 wrote: Wikipedia helped me out in answering this. It is a "creation that has been given much critical praise, especially one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career or to a work of outstanding creativity, skill or workmanship."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece   It also tells how the word was originally used, which was interesting. I find that portion highlighted in blue arbitrary and irrelevant, and especially so for rock music.  If rock critics were at all serious and could be taken seriously, then maybe. But the next portion of the sentence makes perfect sense.

rogerthat wrote: wilmon91 wrote:   But the use of the word "masterpiece" has probably been something that's generally agreed upon, not just one persons opinion.   Yeah, this is what I am driving it, rock audiences are too fragmented for me to attach much importance to consensus in establishing what is a masterpiece. I do rely on such top 100 albums list only because there is more probability of such albums being really good than if I rely on one person's opinion but in rock/pop, using critical opinion or general consensus to decide what is a masterpiece can sometimes be misleading. And... wilmon91 wrote:    I think "Masterpiece" is an old fashioned term and doesn't fit perfectly to rock orientated music. I agree completely.

There is also unmitigated bias against progressive rock on many critics' lists, particularly among the New York establishment, who have been "trendsetters" as far as critique since the 70s.

Edited by The Dark Elf - July 17 2011 at 10:01

It's 2011.

Do people still need to have the objective/subjective argument?

Everybody knows that music is only ever going to be personal opinion. Why do we need so many threads to come to this conclusion?

it's right all those albums you talked about are in the top 100 but many albums would deserve to be in , 666 for instance should have to be in the top 100.....but it's not the case...... i think ther's kind of problem.....

The Truth wrote: The definition changes from person to person, really hard to pin down exactly what makes a masterpiece. I think it has to do with the emotion that is put into the piece of music.

Aside from the 'many' angles you can look at this at the very least it's a good opportunity to say get out there and listen to and review, rate, whatever albusm you consider deserve attention.....it's all about communication/information....otherwise take polls, charts, 'masterpiece' lists with some degree of a pinch of salt....that said, I think prog archives overview of let's just say most notable prog records is fairly accurate.....in terms of being a relevant and good guide.....most of us know there's tons more to delve into but you either don't issue a top 100 or lists of that ilk or you try to give a good guide....

Logan wrote: thehallway wrote: rdtprog wrote: thehallway wrote: It's 2011. Do people still need to have the objective/subjective argument? Everybody knows that music is only ever going to be personal opinion. Why do we need so many threads to come to this conclusion? So you fall again in the obejecte/subjective argument... Music is personal opinion?  I wouldn't define it that way. --------------------------------  One's taste is subjective, but one can objectively analyse qualities of music within a framework.

You're wrong.

Objective analysis would be "This song has a guitar in it". That's not an opinion.