# How has the technical side of music translated into a creative vision for you?



## youngcapone (Mar 1, 2020)

I’m curious to hear what the relationship between the technical aspect of music (or art in general) and the actual creation of it has been for y'all? Did you learn the fundamentals of music theory first and build a foundation of skills/knowledge that could be applied to whatever you chose to create… or do you start with a creative vision and then acquire the knowledge/skills to execute that vision?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I'm not sure I have any idea what you're asking. I am not a musician and have zero musical ability, but I discovered I liked CM early, listened to a lot of it, and -- like many other things -- was interested enough in how music "works" to do a lot of reading in conjunction with my listening. Similarly, I' m not an artist. I do write a lot and have always had a lot of natural talent at it. But to go with it, I have always done a lot of reading -- and recognized good stuff, which helped teach me to be better. Which is probably a roundabout answer: theoretical knowledge helps one develop what one probably already has a natural aptitude for -- and the two go hand in hand, like binary stars rotating around a common center of gravity.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

It's easy to create music without knowing much about it. Turn the radio on. But wait, is that creativity if it's already been done? Yes, it falls cleanly within the definition of creativity: to be involved within a creative process.

The great question however is, without assessing the_ quality_ of the two: is it easier to purely "innovate" without acquiring limitations and boundaries from music theory, to create something from scratch, or is it easier to innovate being well within in the rich sphere of musical education? What's the probability that I will be more innovative, if I learn first, or if I don't?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I experimented from both ends. Sometimes I hear something in my head, without knowing it's full shape or form, and tried different approaches, sometimes having to get up to speed on that form or technique to achieve what I had always envisioned, sometimes I played around with certain patterns or a certain set approach without knowing what I was aiming for, and certain things strike my imagination to build from it. I don't think there is a clear better way, it all depends on the product.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I suggest that some of us just have a natural inclination towards Arts, or at least toward a specific Art. Our interest is kind of inexplicable. We can't explain why we prefer music more than do others, or painting, or literature, or dance. One generally doesn't decide to become an artist in the same way that one decides to become a soldier, or a physician, an accountant, an engineer, or a service worker. Interest is always important in choosing a career, and most folks likely lean towards their interests when doing so. But in nearly every field outside of the arts one can attend courses and learn practical skills that will lend themselves to success in that field, with proper dedication of course. But the Arts provide few guarantees. The same person who could possibly become a great surgeon, or a great trial lawyer, or a great bridge designer might never be able to attain the status of great composer. There's always something more needed for true achievement in the Arts than mere interest and training. Which is perhaps why we tend to view our artists somewhat differently than we view other laborers and professionals.

Any success I've had in the Arts is due to having gained experience and training, but I always suspected there was something more behind that success than mere course work and repetitive doing. I was drawn towards the training because of a deep interest to begin with, and that interest itself was spawned, it seems to me, by some inherent appreciation I've had as long as I remember. There are things I simply have never been interested in, areas which lead many others to successful careers and money and power. I was drawn to the Arts, and the need to create has always proved more overwhelming than the need for money or power. Various folks since my youthful days have pointed out that I seemed to have a knack for certain creative endeavors that they themselves could never fathom, regardless of how high their intellectual levels or how great their own interest in the field. And that is a truism about artists, I suspect. Some call it "a gift", and for lack of a better term I can appreciate the label. As corny and vague a term as it is, it does the job.

I've long cherished creativity over intellect. I'd appreciate having more "smarts," true, but I wouldn't want to give up even a modicum of the creativity I've inherited for a greater IQ. It has served me well and provided me with many hours of pleasure and satisfaction (if not great wealth and power) that I can't imagine having experienced by way of a greater intellect.

So, I would say that I started with a creative vision (but from where it comes I know not) and then gained capability to bring it to some viable level of fruition because I took time and put in the work to acquire the knowledge/skills to execute that vision. The strange "gift" of creativity leads no where without some conscious effort to gain practical knowledge and skills to allow that gift to flourish. But that enigmatic inherent appreciation I referred to above makes the drudgery of the knowledge/skills acquisition bearable. At least that's my own experience.

Had I to do it all over again, I just might opt for a position that guaranteed greater wealth and greater power. I just might. But I'm not sure I'd have as much peace and satisfaction that I have now in my older years . And so ….


----------

