No Words.

By definition, magnum opus is a Latin term for “great work,” or an artist’s crowning achievement. It is their artistic gift to the world, or to their society. 

What has been going through my head, however, is not the definition of the term but rather what makes a work an artist’s magnum opus. How is that determined? I have come up with a few criteria that are important to consider in determining an artist’s magnum opus. For my own sake of familiarity, I will be discussing the criteria that apply to Western Art music.

Scope of Influence. There is no factor more determinate of greatness than a work’s influence. This applies to influence garnered in the time period the work was created, as well as the lasting influence the work has today. 

Rhythmic and Harmonic Complexity. This is determined in multiple ways and is not necessarily objective. If someone discusses the harmonic complexity of a work, they are only taking into account the practices and theories of their own society. For example, if someone declares Arnold Schoenberg’s String Quartet No. 2 as the most harmonically complex piece of music ever written, they are only taking into account the theory established by Western tradition. Rhythmic complexity, on the other hand, is less subjective. Sure, aspects of rhythmic dictation have been established in Western music theory throughout the centuries such as time signature, rhythmic grouping, and repeating patterns, but rhythm is – arguably, I suppose – something more innate. Harmony is learned. Nevertheless, in determining an artist’s magnum opus, which is a Western tradition anyway, rhythmic and harmonic complexity apply. When determining the rhythmic and harmonic complexity of a work, one should look through a historicist lens.

Technicality. This one is not as important in determining a magnum opus on its own, but it is an important factor to consider when deciding what an artist’s magnum opus is based on the criteria listed above. Technicality includes specific technique required and the overall difficulty of creating or performing the work. When determining the technicality of a work, one should look through a historicist lens.

Subjective Aesthetic Beauty. Yes, this is almost entirely subjective. That is why I wrote “subjective aesthetic beauty” instead of just “aesthetic beauty.” However, since we are determining the greatness of Western works, why not apply what is considered aesthetic beauty to the Western ear? Since beauty is almost entirely subjective, this should be the last piece of criterion considered.

Now, taking into account the criteria listed above, I have come up with a list of my own that I would consider the magna opera of many of the most important Western composers by era.