The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Rich2018]

The word "Good" is used as a positive greeting..

" Good" morning...afternoon...evening and night.
Shorten the word you have God(obviously).
I feel "good" today. I had a "good" dinner and planning a "good" night's sleep(on vacation).
No matter how the word " good" is used it generates positivity.
It's "good" to be back in your threads to respond.

Re-arrange the letters in god and you have DOG

Dog is often used negatively

Dog Day Afternoon
In the Dog house
The Dogs of War
Call off the Dogs
Dog tags
Dog eat Dog
Barking up the wrong tree
Crooked as a Dog's hind leg

 

[Angel]

...
I also wanted to mention that good things often contain the potential for future badness, and vice versa.

To say nothing of the good liar, the good thief, etc., those who are good at being bad, yes?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Sure.
As to this good musicianship question, your taste runs to rock, let's say, mine to classical, my friend Ezra's to jazz, and so on. But the jazz musician, the classical musician, the rock musician, while they cater to differing tastes, are all either good or bad musicians depending on how well their musicianship achieves the end of the practice of music.

I do seem to prefer varieties of rock these days, but I also like some jazz, blues, some types of rap/hip-hop and a bit of classical. People will argue endlessly as to what type of music requires more skill (requires the musician to be more "good"), but I've learned there are always exceptions that defy any claim one can make.

Bottom line - there's probably some way to objectively measure someone's technical proficiency ("goodness") at an instrument, but that isn't generally what people care about when they decide what to spend time listening to. So, I put aesthetics above technical prowess when it comes to deciding what's "good". YMMV.

Anyway, I couldn't find the section of whatever thread it was where this topic was discussed previously.

 

[Angel]

I do seem to prefer varieties of rock these days, but I also like some jazz, blues, some types of rap/hip-hop and a bit of classical. People will argue endlessly as to what type of music requires more skill (requires the musician to be more "good"), but I've learned there are always exceptions that defy any claim one can make.

Bottom line - there's probably some way to objectively measure someone's technical proficiency ("goodness") at an instrument, but that isn't generally what people care about when they decide what to spend time listening to. So, I put aesthetics above technical prowess when it comes to deciding what's "good". YMMV.

Anyway, I couldn't find the section of whatever thread it was where this topic was discussed previously.

As I said, all we need to agree on is that the practice of a musician, like the practice of the carpenter or the physician or teacher or lawyer, etc., has an end, an end determined by the nature of the practice. The ends of all the various human practices are various, and like musicianship involve technical considerations and expressive considerations, craft and art, objective and subjective components both.

Then, all we need to agree about is that when we say someone is "good at" some practice, we are basing what we say on the end of that practice.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

As I said, all we need to agree on is that the practice of a musician, like the practice of the carpenter or the physician or teacher or lawyer, etc., has an end, an end determined by the nature of the practice. The ends of all the various human practices are various, and like musicianship involve technical considerations and expressive considerations, craft and art, objective and subjective components both.

Then, all we need to agree about is that when we say someone is "good at" some practice, we are basing what we say on the end of that practice.

I'm afraid this thread will meet the same fate as the befell the portion of the other thread that followed this line. I remember the part of that other thread about what constituted a "good watch". People have different criteria for judgement.

Competence? "good" is a pretty subjective term.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Aesthetics are always subjective. You can't have an objective measurement to decide if music is good or not. With practical things you can, because if a carpenter builds a house and it blows away in the first storm, that was not a good house. But whether the house is nice-looking or not has to be judged subjectively.

And goodness is always relative to badness.

And to make it more complicated, beauty usually includes some ugliness. If music doesn't have enough dissonance it will sound too sweet and boring.

Tension/Resolution. Or try playing "ugly" and interweaving it with beauty. It's hard to get that right.

 

[Angel]

I'm afraid this thread will meet the same fate as the befell the portion of the other thread that followed this line. I remember the part of that other thread about what constituted a "good watch". People have different criteria for judgement.

Competence? "good" is a pretty subjective term.

Of course we're talking about practice here, rather than objects. And here the subjective/objective criteria play no part. If we cannot say that human practice is end-driven, these practices become unintelligible. What are carpenters about? What are teachers about? What are physicians about? Why aren't physicians producing furniture? Why aren't carpenters healing sickness? Because the ends of their respective practices are what they are, and not otherwise. No?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Of course we're talking about practice here, rather than objects. And here the subjective/objective criteria play no part. If we cannot say that human practice is end-driven, these practices become unintelligible. What are carpenters about? What are teachers about? What are physicians about? Why aren't physicians producing furniture? Why aren't carpenters healing sickness? Because the ends of their respective practices are what they are, and not otherwise. No?

I guess I'm wrapped up in the artist perspective, where while there may be a multitude of ends along the path, one is generally trying to evolve and improve continually.

Music is a different beast anyway, I think. Practice at that is an art unto itself. I was still trying to learn to practice better when I was forced to give up instruments altogether.

We may be talking past each other. Let me reread your OP in a bit and try again.

Edit : After rereading the OP, I think I'll watch this thread evolve for awhile before attempting further comment.

 

[Angel]

...
Edit : After rereading the OP, I think I'll watch this thread evolve for awhile before attempting further comment.

This thread will not be evolving, I dare say. You were its last best hope.

 

[Angel]

For the record.

The for-some-reason invalid attachment in the thread-starter:

Not very clever, clearly, but there it is.