Quote:
Originally Posted by asmox /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The first definition of "masterpiece" on dictionary.com is -
1. a person's greatest piece of work, as in an art.
That is completely, unquestionably, 100% subjective.
|
Depends on what angle you look at it from.
Historically, we know that "In The Court of the Crimson King" was significantly more important to music than "Lark's Tongue in Aspic". I know many King Crimson fans who prefer the latter over the former. However, I don't know any that would deny that the former was the cause of a very important change in music into and throughout the 70s.
There are albums that you like, and then there are albums that are "good". This applies to everything. Compare an inexpensive meal you love with a masterfully-prepared food dish you don't enjoy that is quite a bit more expensive. Say that masterfully-prepared dish is fish, but you don't eat fish. Is the food bad just because you don't like it? Bobby Flay makes damn good food, and it's not because everybody likes it - it's because it's well-made. There's a significant difference.
This comes over to music as well. I know plenty of people who could care less about progressive rock, but anybody well versed in music understands the significance that ITOTCK had. I don't look at music as "good" or "bad" in a subjective sense, since I obviously love a lot of music that is only substantial within certain levels of taste and/or genre, as do most people. Pop bands like Aha - I like them a lot - but I would never consider them "good music", because they did little of anything significant. I just think it's fun and enjoyable. I know that albums like Astronome by John Zorn cannot be determined as "good" or "bad", because we have no idea what will happen as a result of this album, and frankly, it isn't among Zorn's strongest work. But I really, really enjoy it. The sheer power, the intensity - it's all a very lovely thing for me. But I won't be saying it's one of the best albums ever made; who am I to judge this in this context and in this time period?
So, when I consider a masterpiece (an artist's "best" work), I consider an album which has been proven as objectively the best work. I don't put any personal judgment into the mix; just my knowledge of the work and its inner and outer contexts. Pink Floyd's "masterpiece", as history and production techniques have told us, is Dark Side of the Moon. But I don't enjoy this album as much as others, such as Piper at the Gates of Dawn, or Meddle.
And again, it all comes back to people being
way too touchy these days. I am NOT trying to undermine anybody's opinions! kwitel from the very beginning was offended that I mentioned the word "masterpiece" within his context (that he could not "enjoy" it), and he shouldn't have been, since I was clearly not using the word in the same contextual manner that he was. You guys have to stop whining all the time, and realize that it is impossible to judge "good" or "bad" in music from a subjective standpoint. Objectively speaking, however, King Crimson's album has been proven as a "good" record, since we know how innovative and ahead of its time that it was.