"Iconic" vs. "Masterpiece"

For me, the use of the word "iconic" applies more to classic albums that serve as historical guideposts, landmarks of music history, albums whose collective value to the genre or collective consciousness outweighs their actual quality in terms of music. A "masterpiece," on the other hand, deals with a publication that contains a cohesive, balanced collection of songs whose overall quality stands up well over time--over the scrutiny of so-called "experts," critics, and fans, as having the ability, over time, to continue to earn high scores based on merit, interest, and respect. 

For example: many members of Gen X or Gen Z are obviously discovering "classic prog" or "classic jazz-rock fusion" as "oldies," that is, these humans were not alive when these "ancient" artists were producing those albums and must, therefore, look at the album due to some historical importance or significance that history has assigned to them. Yet, it is totally up to them to judge whether or not they like the music--whether or not they understand the reasons for their historical significance--and then to judge whether or not they find value in these albums and musics now, some of them 50+ years on.

When I joined ProgArchives in 2007, I was opening myself up to a vast world of music of which I had never had any knowledge. I was, therefore, pretty much like a babe in a toy store (or a sugar-aholic in a candy store). 90% of the music I've discovered since joining PA has been totally new to me. I had never heard of any of the European Continental bands other than Focus, Passport and those on Manfred Eicher's ECM label, I'd never heard of a Canterbury Scene, Zeuhl, Post Rock, Avant Garde/RIO, Heavy Prog, NeoProg, Prog Metal, Tech/Extreme Metal, Krautrock, Indo-Prog/Raga Rock, or Rock Progressivo Italiano much less heard any albums by any of the bands associated with any of those sub-genres. So, I can definitely relate to having to approach all of "classic prog's" and highly-acclaimed albums on purely historical terms. Whether or not I like or even appreciate these albums the way history seems to value them is up to my personal values and standards. As a case in point, there are currently 61 of PA's Top 100 Progressive Rock Albums of All-Time that I do not consider masterpieces; 159 of the Top 250! I understand the majority of value them, I understand their historical significance and value to others, I just do not see that their music, production, quality and consistency stand up to the scrutiny of the "masterful" level (a lot of them may in fact have been accidental--just achieving such notoriety because they were novel, fresh and/or innovative for their time). 

My point is that I think it important to distinguish between these "classic" landmark albums in music history and whether or not they continue to present themselves as "masterpieces" of human ingenuity. For example, I think there is no question that Terry Riley's A Rainbow in Curved Air, Amon Düül II's Phallus Dei, Iron Butterfly's In-a-gadda-da-vida, The Nice's Ars Longa Vita Breva, and Tony Williams Lifetime's Emergency! were landmark albums in the formation and building momentum of that which would become known as "progressive rock music," but do they stand up over time--55 years later--as "great" or even "good" music? These iconic albums mark great steps in the evolution of music but, if released (for the first time) today, what kind of attention and awe would they generate (if any)?