Interesting (though brief) discussion by Botstein here, and an announcement of the US premiere of Herzogenberg's Symphony No. 1! He doesn't answer the question, but he encourages the audience to think about it when they listen to the three symphonies.
Though, technically, it would be Herzogenberg's 7th symphony (after WoO 1, 2, 25, 28, 29 and Op. 16).
Cheers
Balapoel
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgDb8et8MvU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgDb8et8MvU)
Music Director Leon Botstein discusses American Symphony Orchestra's concert "What Makes a Masterpiece", Fri, Jan 15, 2013 at Carnegie Hall.
To mark his 20th year with the ASO, Music Director Leon Botstein offers a signature program, questioning why some works are regarded as masterpieces, while others are overlooked.
Antonín Dvořák: Symphony No. 4
Heinrich von Herzogenberg: Symphony No. 1 - U.S. Premiere
Johannes Brahms: Symphony No. 4
Since we have to wait 6 months for Botstein's exposition, I propose an interim solution that a masterpiece is what *I* personally determine. I am the authority of final appeal. No correspondence with the judge will be entered into.
Didn't the term Master Piece originate in medieval European universities as the piece submitted to obtain their masters degree?
in universities or in master-apprentice relations, something thelike, I do think, yes. But word meanings / sentence meanings (thank you, Wittgenstein... sigh) aren't terribly steady on their feet.
To be sure, I wasn't posting the title as an actual question, but rather, it is simply the title of Botstein's comments on youtube. I think those 3 symphonies, one relatively unknown from a famous composer, one unknown from an unknown composer, and one well-known from a famous composer, all composed at nearly the same time, make for an interesting comparison.
Oh no! Not again!
The question cannot be answered. If there was one, any reasonably talented musician (or computer) would crank out masterpieces one after the other. And that just doesn't happen. It's a wonderful confluence of inspiration, technical skill, imagination, and even luck. Years ago a US Supreme Court judge said he can't define pornography, but he knows it when he sees it. Think of von Bulow when he first read through the Brahms 1st and he supposedly said "At last, the 10th". Let me just say that as a perfoming musician, when I play a masterpiece there is something that is just right. You feel it, you know it. Brahms 1 is a great work and deserves its reputation. There are other things I play all too often because they are popular. But you know in your gut that it's no masterpiece: Grand Canyon Suite comes to mind. Every time I play Scheherazade I am just in awe of the genius of its construction, even though critics too easily dismiss it, but playing Antar is just plain torture: it's no masterpiece. You just know it internally.
Just tonight I was playing a short concert of a Verdi overture (Nabucco), Berlioz (excerpts from Romeo and Juliet) and the Beethoven 6th. The first two are alright. Well written, but somehow unfulfilling. But at the end of the Pastoral you just feel it: this is great, great music. Impossible to quantify, but easily felt.
Wanna know a Verdi overture that I consider a masterpiece? Vespri Siciliani.
Martin, I'm only a choral singer of modest accomplishments but I identify entirely with what you say about both the feeling you get when performing something truly great and the inability to define what the components of greatness are. Very nicely put.
Quote from: mbhaub on Wednesday 01 August 2012, 05:56
Berlioz (excerpts from Romeo and Juliet) and the Beethoven 6th. The first two are alright. Well written, but somehow unfulfilling. But at the end of the Pastoral you just feel it: this is great, great music. Impossible to quantify, but easily felt.
Nope, Berlioz' R & J is a masterpiece too. The love music unfulfilling? Some of the most thrilling music ever written. IMHO!