I've seen similarly named classes taught by university professors who were former highly respected practitioners. They're often taught as light intro/survey lectures, usually a couple hours of lecture. I think that's the type of "masterclass" that the brand is named after. In the context where I saw these classes, they're very much a sort of "edutainment" to either market the university or to give alumni a taste of the college academic life they remember.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think having an unfamiliar subject presented to you in an enjoyable and understandable way is actually a really good thing for expanding your perspective. But that's very different from taking a class to gain proficiency.

Of course there's also the other type of "master class" where a master teaches the nuances that set the masters apart from the "merely proficient".

> but they’re framing it as a “masterclass” which is a class given by a master of a topic to students who are proficient in their topic

But they're not?

They're using the word as a trademark, sure, but the actual service is obviously intended for people of a variety of skill levels, as thematically connected by being taught by well-known 'masters' (such as the Penn and Teller magic lessons).

In other words, when I buy an Apple computer and it doesn't include any apples in the box, that's not 'paradoxical'.

I don't think that's quite the same. Apples are very obviously not computers, while MasterClass's offering is extremely similar to what a "masterclass" is, which leads me to read it as meaning "we offer a service that maps to what our name is".

There not much point in having a famous practicioner teach the class if you're a beginner. Masters have littler reason to be great teachers, so the reason to learn directly from them is if you're so proficient that normal teachers can't teach you much.

It's clear in this case that the reason they have famous people is because of the celebrity value.

Yeah, I think a true master could technically teach anyone, though that isn't always true. Also, if a master teacher teaches to a novice it would be widely different than to a professional, so, like you, I too have the question who is this targeted to? I personally haven't taken a masterclass so I wouldn't know. (Not that I wouldn't like to though.) I would believe it's the novice though they could have different classes for different levels, but you couldn't really prepare someone from novice to master in the manner of a few classes. I think you can be somewhat proficient, if not highly proficient in a new skill quickly say like 80th to 90th percentile of the whole world, but to get any further and really excel and be one of the best (keywords here are being a master) at something takes a lot of skill, knowledge, and determination. I'd say a master is generally quite well above 90th percentile of people in their field (notice I didn't say the world there).

>I too have the question who is this targeted to? I personally haven't taken a masterclass so I wouldn't know. (Not that I wouldn't like to though.) I would believe it's the novice though they could have different classes for different levels, but you couldn't really prepare someone from novice to master in the manner of a few classes.

I've had a subscription for about eight months now.

Most of the classes are at the same level that "prosumer" hardware is marketed at: advanced amateur or beginning professional.

For example: Daniel Negranu (a poker pro) has a very good class on poker. At no point does he explain how to play the game or what terms like "on the button" mean - that's all assumed knowledge. The target user is a player who can play a solid game already and hold their own in tournaments, perhaps without actually winning the final table.

Thomas Keller's (a famous chef) masterclass is similar: at no point does he explain what a shallot is or how to hold a chef's knife (obscure, seldom-used hooked knives ARE explained if they come up), but he does go into a lot of precise detail about how to cook certain dishes and exactly how to identify the freshest produce or tell when the lamb shank you are braising is done.

>I'd say a master is generally quite well above 90th percentile of people in their field.

The quality of instructors is truly amazing - easily the top 0.1% - most are world-famous masters of their art. Things like acting lessons from AAA celebrities, dancing lessons from the lead ballerina at one of the top companies in the world, music lessons from multi-platinum artists etc.

This sounds like a giant ad for masterclass. I just happen to really like their content and am definitely not paid by them in any way :)

Hope this helps!

I liked Thomas Keller's lectures the best out of all the MasterClass content I've seen. Great balance of practical knowledge, context and insight. Explaining that what he's doing is about refinement for its own sake puts the steps he takes into context in terms of what you can leave out vs incorporate. He's low-key. The lack of ads and zaney edgy music make it FAR more enjoyable than any cooking show you'll see on TV, IMHO.

Those are good examples. Annie Liebovitz is a counterexample. A lot of the Class is video of her in a circle with students talking about her experiences, or giving feedback. Critique is important, but it's similarly not integral to the process. She even boasts about not knowing what equipment "she" uses. I say it that way because you watch her on a "photoshoot" ("Accompany Annie on an actual photoshoot!"): She is standing back, talking to the subject. Someone else is operating the camera and pushing the shutter. Then they're in a studio and someone else is editing the photo as she oversees. That's creative direction, not photography.

> The quality of instructors is truly amazing - easily the top 0.1% - most are world-famous masters of their art. Things like acting lessons from AAA celebrities, dancing lessons from the lead ballerina at one of the top companies in the world, music lessons from multi-platinum artists etc.

FWIW, the best talent usually do not make the best teachers. This is a fact widely remarked upon in the world of sports. Knowing how to get your body to do something well is a very different skill from being able to get another person's body to do something well.

Also, understanding the various ways in which people learn a specific subject is an underappreciated ability possessed by a good teacher. Knowing how various people get hung up on conceptually on different elements of a subject is something that comes from experience and outside review of your teaching that a "master" probably never gets.

The corollary is that good teachers are rarely great in their field.

This is a good point actually. The instructors with prior TV experience seem to produce much better content than those without.

A true master can teach anyone but not necessarily at the same time. This is the same problem that plagues even school teaching. Pairing someone who groks the content at a rapid pace and comes up with derivative insights with someone who struggles to understand the basics is a waste of both people's times.

> Seems like more entertainment than an actual masterclass which I would prefer

Teaching is hard. Just because you are an expert in a field doesn't mean you can teach it.

Probably the only one I would actually trust is the Gordon Ramsay one. He knows his stuff, and it's clear he can teach it.

Ironically Ramsay would be my example of a master who's too detached from being a beginner to be a good teacher.

I absolutely love his shows and youtube videos as entertainment, but he will frequently not mention measurements, temperature or cook time, not mention WHY he's doing something, just that it should be done.

He has a video along the lines of "Cheap simple dorm room meals for college students" that requires expensive ingredients like Saffron and fresh mozzarella, lamb shanks.

> I absolutely love his shows and youtube videos as entertainment, but he will frequently not mention measurements, temperature or cook time, not mention WHY he's doing something, just that it should be done.

As Alton Brown's videos demonstrate, this takes up a LOT of time on air.

The problem, I suspect, is that most of Ramsay's videos are time constrained. When he doesn't seem to be time constrained, he's absolutely delightful to watch.

I've watched him teach things like "how to cook scrambled eggs for breakfast" that are absolutely wonderful.

And watched him screw up the timing of the toast. :)

Given his ability with kids and the times I have seen it shine through in videos, I suspect he is a very strong teacher.

Have you watched his Home Cooking series, with his family? I can't remember the details intricately, but it did seem far more grounded and specific than his other work (which, to be fair, Master Chef and his others are aimed at dissecting people who should be accomplished cooks and need honing and refining).

I’m also a huge fan of Ramsay and have watched many of his shows. There was once he mentioned that be never gives you the measurements because that should be up to each person to decide. He only does so when it’s chemically important like in his baking videos.