It depends on how you translate the verb. "To sound good" is used all over the place, and that's what a musician might say evaluating the performance of a band (i.e. the arrangement, the balance between the instruments, the articulation and the interplay). However, with "play" you should use "well", because in that case it describes the way of action, not the perceived result.
In passive voice statements with «essere» as the verb: e.g. «I flauti sono suonati bene.» = "The flutes are played well."
You may also use «suonati» when using a third-person clitic pronoun before «avere»: e.g. «Hanno suonato i sassofoni bene?» «Sì, li hanno suonati benissimo.» = "Did they play the saxophones well?" "Yes, they played them very well."
I put "we have not sounded good" and it corrected it to "we have not sounded well". What does that mean? Like when you're ill and you sound unwell? I had assumed it was more like a band who don't sound good.
Yes, so, with "well" and "good" in English, oftentimes they can define the meaning of the verb better. For example, if I say that "I do not smell well," that means my sense of smell is impaired, and I cannot sniff and perceive scents well. If I say that "Durians do not smell good," since durians have no noses to sniff things, I am saying that they give off an unpleasant odor, so people are smelling that. Does this make sense?
Same concept with "to sound" which, just like "to smell," has different meanings depending on whether you use "good" or "well." If you say, "We did not sound well," that means that the band physically "sounded" or played their instruments badly (that sense of the word "to sound" as in "sound the alarm" or "sound the whistle," instead of "set off the alarm" or "blow the whistle"). Note that this sentence would sound better with some type of object following "sound." Now if you say, "We did not sound good," that means that the band sounded sick or that their music sounded bad, so other people are hearing their sound/music.
For this type of Italian sentence, the most common interpretation is "We did not play well," with «suonare» meaning "to play [a musical instrument]." However, you can also potentially, albeit uncommon, interpret it as either "We did not sound well" or "We did not sound good," if I am not mistaken, with «suonare» meaning "to sound." To avoid confusion, I would stick with the "play" translation. =]
Well, they better correct an exercise where they translate as "performed". "Le ragazze hanno suonato due pezzi"
How come good is not acceptable? DL needs to stop showing the wrong answers in hints.
It is almost always safest to go with the first choice in the hover hints. Duolingo does not give wrong answers; it gives all answers in all possible contexts because it is a computer. For example, in the sentence «Ti sta bene.», the idiomatic English translation would be "It looks good on you," where «bene» in this context translates to "good" and not "well." Our job as human learners is to choose the best fit answer for the situation, which tends to normally be the first choice at the top of the list for each word.
I seem to need an English lesson. Why abbiamo instead of siamo? Isn't abbiamo used for transitive verbs...I am not seeing an object of play here. Help...
The object doesn't necessarily appear when you use a transitive verb. In English for example, you can say "I cooked." "To cook" is still transitive because you are still cooking "something." In Italian, you would say, "Ho cucinato."
The same cannot be said for an intransitive verb like "to jump," because you would not jump "something" (except in idiomatic expressions).
The object, some sort of musical instrument, is implied here. Also, for intransitive verbs, it is not automatically «essere»; it could be «essere» or «avere».
Hoping not to hear a lot of this about the national soccer team when I get over there.
That would be «giocato». «suonato» is only used for playing musical instruments. :D
Oh...So then I probably should expect to hear this about the soccer team, unless they all happen to be musicians in their spare time.
Right. You would hear «giocato» for the soccer team and «suonato» for the musicians in the soccer team. :)
I was corrected from 'sounded good' (helped by the translation tips) to 'sounded well'. !?!?!?
I do not know if this can be translated as "did not sound good" as in maybe "we" were sick or "we" did not practice the musical piece too often, but «suonare» is definitely used as "to play [a musical instrument]." Therefore, Duolingo might have expected you to say "did not play well," and it only corrected one thing.
doesn't this translate to: "We have not played well?" Since "suonato" means "played".
Yes, or, alternatively, "We did not play well." The passato prossimo tense in Italian is used to translate the English present perfect tense and the simple past tense.
Because the auxiliary verb is «avere», not «essere». The past participle only agrees when the auxiliary verb is «essere» or when there is a direct object pronoun («l'») before «avere».
So if a soccer player loses a game, how does he/she say "We did not play well" in Italian? Is playing an instrument and playing a sport two different things?
The first time i translated this sentence i said we did not play well, which is proper English. I was told i should have written, we did notplay good, which i wroye the second time, figuring it would be correct. Wrong! They wanted me to write play well. And that was less than five minues later. Make up your mind DL, please.