The Delusion of Being Good

[Matximus]

I was only referring to the statement that if someone gave even a dollar for something, that means it's good. For me, the willingness of someone to give money for something is one indicator that something is of quality, but by no means the only one. History is full of examples where people paid money for absolute crap. The people who bought it might think it's good, true enough. But things like number of sales, what other people say about something, longevity in the marketplace, etc leads to a consensus about what's good in an overall sense. That's why BMW has a better reputation as being good than Yugo does, and why Crosby Stills and Nash are generally thought to be a better singing group than the Jonas Brothers.

You're getting bogged down in the taste issue. Is something better than something else? Books have been written about "quality." (Zen and the ARt of Motorcycles... most famously.) But who the hell knows. It's fun to argue about, sure. And I'd be happy to go toe to toe with you about Jonas Vs. CSN, by the way, cause I think the Jonas's have a bad rap. They're great. But it's a meaningless conversation.

I'm breaking this down with ABC Logic:

Money is exchanged for things of value.
If money is exchanged for your music,
Then that music has clear value.

If you can create something of value, then you're good at what you do.

IE: if you have never made a buck busking on the Subway, hawking a disc on the internet, or passing the tip jar around at the coffee shop or however else then you probably suck, because your music has no value.

[wwwjd]

where technology fails: you USED to write a song, include parts and stuff and make one coherent package, designed front to back, like a great bowl of soup with 4 or 5 hand picked quality ingredients. now, you slap down some no thought parts, copy, dupe, slide them around until it sounds cool - not until it makes sense or is something coherent - like a bowl of soup with 72 ingredients taste like crap. yes tech COULD be used to write properly, but seems like it is not being used that way

[adorduan]

The music world needs more Simon Cowell's and less Paula Abdul's.

[mstreck]

Maybe, but I can't recall a generation who has higher self esteem associated with less accomplishment than this one has.

I have a feeling that it's getting worse! I'm a high school teacher and today I had someone tell me that I ruined her chances of getting all A's on her progress report because I "gave" her a C. She made no mention of barely taking notes, or never doing her homework, or barely passing her tests, or resisting when I offer help, or anything else that was a result of her own actions. I think we will soon have a country (world?) full of whiny piss-babies that can't even handle *constructive* criticism. Hell, we're almost there now.

She's right, though. I did "give" her a C - because the computer rounded the 69.5% to a 70%.

That being said, I know I suck as a guitarist and/or singer. But there are others who are worse than I am who don't think that they suck. I don't get it. But as long as they're around, I'll look somewhat competent.

[Synonym Music]

I was only referring to the statement that if someone gave even a dollar for something, that means it's good. For me, the willingness of someone to give money for something is one indicator that something is of quality, but by no means the only one. History is full of examples where people paid money for absolute crap.

 

Yes. And marketing can get a lot of people to open up their wallets for absolute crap. That's one of the reasons why capitalism is so corrupted these days.

 

In mixing you can use your band contacts and circle of friends to get clients. It's great to have that groundwork laid when you move into another side of the field. But eventually, if you're not very good at mixing, you'll come under harsh scrutiny and people will stop paying once you move up to that next income/notoriety level.. Because they know what great mixing sounds like, and they'll take you down tens of pegs if it doesn't meet their standards.

 

So... You can get paid for average or mediocre work just through being a people person. Eventually your weaknesses will catch up to you, though, and you'll be SOL cause you happened to suck. That's the way it should be.

[Surrealistic]

Well, the trouble is that if, on this very site, we can't all even agree that the Beatles were "good" then the word "good" is pretty meaningless. Hence in this context I have to go with what Matximus says. It may be oversimplistic but at least it's measurable and not subjective.

[THBv2.0]

I fear another thread has reached status.

[BlueStrat]

You're getting bogged down in the taste issue. Is something better than something else? Books have been written about "quality." (Zen and the ARt of Motorcycles... most famously.) But who the hell knows. It's fun to argue about, sure. And I'd be happy to go toe to toe with you about Jonas Vs. CSN, by the way, cause I think the Jonas's have a bad rap. They're great. But it's a meaningless conversation. I'm breaking this down with ABC Logic: Money is exchanged for things of value. If money is exchanged for your music, Then that music has clear value. If you can create something of value, then you're good at what you do. IE: if you have never made a buck busking on the Subway, hawking a disc on the internet, or passing the tip jar around at the coffee shop or however else then you probably suck, because your music has no value.

 

Having value and being good are two different things.

 

What if I got up and played Moonlight Sonata flawlessly in a cowboy bar and not only didn't get paid, but but got booed off the stage as well? Would that mean Moonlight Sonata has no value, isn't a good piece or music, or could it just meant that it was the wrong piece to play at the time?

 

It's true that taste is subjective, but what's good and even great can be arrived at by consensus. If a million people think the Beatles were brilliant, and 1000 don't, chances are they were brilliant, but not those thousand people's cup of tea. If a million people say the Jonas brothers are okay but not brilliant, and 1000 do, chances are they aren't brilliant, but decent at what they do. Another example is art. Peter Max made a fortune making pop art in the 60s and 70s. He made far and away more money in a single year than Van Gogh ever did in his lifetime. In fact, Van Gogh could barely sell a painting while he was alive. Does that mean Peter Max's art is better than Van Gogh's? Not according to consensus.

 

If everything is great simply because someone says it is, then everything is great, meaning nothing really is. It all becomes like Garrison Keeler's Lake Woebegone, "where every kid is above average".

 

And yes, we've long passed the point of flagellating the deceased pony!

[Synonym Music]

Well, the trouble is that if, on this very site, we can't all even agree that the Beatles were "good" then the word "good" is pretty meaningless. Hence in this context I have to go with what Matximus says. It may be oversimplistic but at least it's measurable and not subjective.

 

Music is subjective, but I suppose you could look at their playing for a measuring stick of some kind. It'd be hard to argue they were bad players.

 

In mixing people are going to you for a certain sound. Why choose Manny Maroquin over Dave Pensado, Michael Brauer over Chris Lord-Alge, Serban Ghenea over Dave Way? Their rates are not drastically different, nor their level of notoriety, nor their track record. I bet none of them would {censored} the project up.. But they all sound different, have different ideas, etc.

 

It's not that any of them necessarily define "good" (though IMO they often put out good work) - it IS that their services are what people are looking for. They're popular without any shtick. Their collective knowledge and experiences are immense. They put the work in and have probably suffered greatly at some point in their lives to get where they are.

 

What marketing can do beyond reaching wider audiences is to convince people to buy something they don't need. I'm not going to recommend a top-tier if an artist's recording budget is $10k total. That's out of the question even if the mixer's rate was flexible (and these days they often are) - there's no point in overspending. I'd call up contacts, search in town, use independents that have a good sound and track record but don't cost as much, maybe I'd do it myself if I wasn't involved in production up till that point. There are always ways to get around small budgets.

 

But I could also be unethical and say, "Hey, just save up that extra $3k so he can mix it and you can get a radio hit," which is obviously nonsense. They'll be in the hole before you can say the hole is what they're in.

 

So.. In that case.. Even a top-tier mixer is not worth the money. The budget immediately tells you it's a bad decision. It's great that big mixer dude can charge what he can and is often worth the pricetag, but don't put it past him to convince people to pay more than they have on occasion. MARKETING.

[richardmac]

Maybe, but I can't recall a generation who has higher self esteem associated with less accomplishment than this one has. There is nothing that this generation doesn't think needs to be kept private. Even Newsweek called them the 'look at me' generation. We see examples of the look at me syndrome here every day. Like I said, though-it's a creation of my generation.

 

 

Oh, they'll learn. Believe me. I think some have learned right here in this forum. We can't make mistakes FOR them. They have to make their own mistakes.

 

I know several guys in their early 20's who I met years ago when I worked at a high school, and they're all kicking ass right now. Back in high school, I told them, "If you find something you enjoy doing, that there's a demand for, and you work at it really hard, you'll kick almost everyone's ass." And it's true, because there are a lot of people going through the motions. But that's not just this generation, that's life. I see guys in their 40's and 50's coasting at their jobs. But that's another discussion.

 

On the other hand...

 

I met a young student teacher earlier this year - I spent the day in her classroom. She was awesome. And at the end of the day I told her I thought she was a really good teacher and to use me as a reference if she needed another one. But the reality is that my county probably won't hire her, because we can't afford to hire anyone. We're all looking at a 2 percent pay cut next year so we can try to keep the jobs of the people who we already have.

 

So round up a group of 21 year olds, and you'll find an interesting collection of people - some who are ready to go out in the work force and kick ass, some of whom who are sitting around waiting for a job offer that will never come. I feel bad for the kids who are getting out of college and saying "I studied really hard and I got good grades and I've done everything I'm supposed to do, America... so where's my freaking job?"

 

Aside from the government trying to right the boat, I think what America really needs is a dose of the Apple plan... When Steve Jobs came back to Apple, the company was almost dead and everyone had written them off. And what Apple did to bring themselves back and become a huge force was to concentrate on innovation. They innovated their way out of their bad position. That and I'm sure a lot of hard work and long hours.

 

If we're going to right the ship, we're going to need people who are creative and innovative. Yesterday's teen was planted in front of the TV. Today's teen is blogging, podcasting, consuming way more information, etc. They may be the "look at me" generation, but they're creating much more. They want to be content producers.

 

I think it'll all work out fine.

[Matximus]

Having value and being good are two different things. What if I got up and played Moonlight Sonata flawlessly in a cowboy bar and not only didn't get paid, but but got booed off the stage as well? Would that mean Moonlight Sonata has no value, isn't a good piece or music, or could it just meant that it was the wrong piece to play at the time? pony!

No. Read what I wrote earlier. I didn't say value equals good. I said you're pretty good if you can create something of value. It's a subtle but important difference. And in terms of your example - if you can play Moonlight Sonata flawlessly, then I'm pretty sure there's a market out there for that skill - you'd be able to get paid playing in a cocktail bar, wedding reception, corporate function, whatever. Your ability has clear value, even if that Cowboy bar was the wrong market. Moonlight Sonata might not be everybody's cup of tea, but you can probably turn a buck if you can play it with skill. Hence, you're pretty good, regardless of what the hicks say.

[BlueStrat]

 

No. Read what I wrote earlier. I didn't say value equals good. I said you're pretty good if you can create something of value. .

 

 

 

You said this:

 

Have you ever made one dollar off your music? If so - than you're probably pretty good.

 

 

If you've never been paid for your work than your work ain't worth squat and, well, you probably aren't very good.

 

 

No arguing with that greenback: it's the only validation you need.

 

 

I'm not arguing that value is subjective. I'm arguing with what you said here.

[THBv2.0]

I find that an implement with a wide, flat surface is best for beating a dead horse.





Can I loan you kids a couple shovels?

[BlueStrat]

[Blackwatch]

 

What if I got up and played Moonlight Sonata flawlessly in a cowboy bar and not only didn't get paid, but but got booed off the stage as well? Would that mean Moonlight Sonata has no value, isn't a good piece or music, or could it just meant that it was the wrong piece to play at the time?

 

 

It's funny you used this example....

I have a friend who just happens to be a world class violin player, (Assistant concert master for the Seattle Synphony) and he would come to my gigs and play classical violin in these dive bars I was playing. He loved it because he never got to be that close to people when he played and the patrons in these nasty bars would actually shut up and listen, you could hear a pin drop when he played, and the hair on the back of your neck would stand up.

 

It don't know how it relates to the discussion, I just wanted to tell the story...

[ermghoti II]

That needs a "Barry, you ignorant slut."

[nuclear arsenal]

as a human being, goodness is an interesting and subjective idea. for instance, police are the largest kidnappers in society. if you made murder (for instance) legal, would the number of people who kill increase? would the number of people who kill killers decrease? would society change significantly, or is it all a question of semantics, of fashion?

as for playing the guitar, as long as i enjoy it, i don't really care about skill level. some people can give you joy regardless of if they're playing a one chord song, and there are skillful players that are not fun to hear. and the opposite, aka what you'd normally expect, is also part of it..

[Matximus]

You said this: I'm not arguing that value is subjective. I'm arguing with what you said here.

 

 

Yes. And all three of those things jibe with my argument: if you have made money creating music you are pretty good, because your music has value.

 

I'm not saying YOUR MUSIC is good because it has value. I'm saying YOU ARE good because your music has value. The ability to create value is the only way to determine if one is, well, good. Your missing that part of my argument.

[Matximus]

I find that an implement with a wide, flat surface is best for beating a dead horse. Can I loan you kids a couple shovels?

But out if you're not interested in this thread any more. I'm still interested in what people have to say here.

[richardmac]

as a human being, goodness is an interesting and subjective idea. for instance, police are the largest kidnappers in society. if you made murder (for instance) legal, would the number of people who kill increase? would the number of people who kill killers decrease? would society change significantly, or is it all a question of semantics, of fashion?

 

 

That has to be the stupidest post I've ever read here. Ever. Congrats.

[nuclear arsenal]

thank you. that was the nicest and most accurate thing anyone's ever said.

 

how would you answer the questions?

[THBv2.0]

But out if you're not interested in this thread any more. I'm still interested in what people have to say here.

:lol:


Does the phrase "howling at the moon" mean anything to you?


:blah:

[richardmac]

thank you. that was the nicest and most accurate thing anyone's ever said. how would you answer the questions?

 

 

Oh. OK. Sure.

 

1. If you made murder (for instance) legal, would the number of people who kill increase?

 

Yes. Laws and the threat of prison prevent some violence. Take the laws away, and murder would increase. To argue otherwise would be to suggest that laws have no effect, and I think most people would agree that laws do act as a deterrent. They don't prevent all murder, but they prevent some.

 

2. Would the number of people who kill killers decrease?

 

No, the number would increase, because you'd now have revenge. You killed my friend, so I will kill you, and your friend will kill me. And so on. This would happen more in the cities where murder rates are already much higher than the suburbs. But murder rates would increase all over.

 

3. Would society change significantly, or is it all a question of semantics, of fashion?

 

Society would change dramatically. Everywhere would be less safe, people would begin to arm themselves, and we'd be thrown back in time in terms of civilization. This is why I said it was the stupidest thing I've ever read here.

 

4. as for playing the guitar, as long as i enjoy it, i don't really care about skill level. some people can give you joy regardless of if they're playing a one chord song, and there are skillful players that are not fun to hear. and the opposite, aka what you'd normally expect, is also part of it..

 

Well, that part was not a question but a statement and I agree with it 100%. It was a stunning post - the dumbest thing I've ever read combined with an astute observation that I totally agree with.

[nuclear arsenal]

so you don't think that the threat of informal punishment/revenge would deter murder the same way you believe that the threat of legal punishment does? or that some other social pressure would pop up in its place to act as a deterrent?

in other words, i'm asking if you believe that the legal system creates an artificially safe equilibrium (not that artificial=bad in this case) that would not occur without it.

i only asked because the drug war was on my mind, and the stats seem to say that drug use doesn't jump when it's decriminalized. so i was wondering if it was the same with other laws.

you might think it's stupid, but your beliefs are just as much conjecture as the opposite viewpoint would be, since no society i'm aware of has voluntarily done away with that aspect of its legal system.

 

but as for your arguments, i think i already responded to #1, but as for #2, that is sort of how the legal system works. you kill my friend, i stick you in jail for the rest of your life (or if you're in texas, i kill you), but if you try to get revenge, there are a lot more of us than there are of you, so you're {censored}ed if you try to find justice outside of our system. is this morally right, or is it just might makes right? #3: i live in the u.s. a quick google search indicated that there's about 200 million guns and about 42-50 million gun owners. there's 110 million households, so it's pretty well armed already. canada's better armed per capita, despite having lower murder rates, and korea, which has a similar murder rate to canada, does not allow private gun ownership.

 

i'm not saying legalize murder, but i don't think it's as dumb an idea as it might seem at first. i think it's actually a very complex question.

 

in any case, i'm not sure what the policies for "political" debate is in this forum, so i'm gonna let it go after this.

[richardmac]

I agree that this is not a political forum, and I also agree that neither theory can be really proven - it's all conjecture. I won't be convinced and neither will society and we will keep our laws.

 

The war on drugs is a pretty different issue, but again this is not a political forum. This particular thread is about beating to death the idea of what it means to be "good." And the answer is that each person has their own opinion of what "good" is and music is for fun and to enrich our lives, and it's a free Internet - we can put our music up, out there, and what will happen will happen. And every time THBv2.0 posts something, I get totally distracted by the avatar and forget what I was reading.