Inside every one of us is a musician. The point is, some of us are able to express that inner music, and some are not. Some are able to express it in quite melodic tones, some not so melodic. But each one of us has music. This makes each one of us a musician. But who is a good musician?
This is what Laurel & Hardy were discussing the other day. Hardy is, or at least was, of the firm opinion that there are some musicians who are good musicians, and others who are not so good musicians, and this can be defined by the quality of the music they make. To this, Laurel responds with a profound question. How do you define the quality of music? What is good music, and what is not so good music? What you may like as music, i may not, and vice-versa. Leaving that aside too, people’s tastes in music change as they mature, or even as their moods change. This means that theres no constant, universal definition of good music. What this means is that there cannot be a universal definition of a good musician, or that of a bad musician.
This brought him to another question … is there any such thing as good music and not so good music? Theres only music, and the rest is superimposed on it by us.
By extension to this, is there anything as a good musician? There are musicians, and the rest is up to the listener. Indeed, inside every one of us is a musician.