How I wrote 49 Songs in 1 Year & How You Can do the Same

[TomViolenz]

It's silly to think that creativity can't be taught. I've had artists better than me point me in the right direction at times & that had an impact on my ability to translate my ideas much better. It certainly saved me much more time than going it alone, which I did for quite a while.

Creativity is almost always a passing of the torch. Nobody creates in a vacuum. Even Mozart had a teacher at one point. That said, everybody gets from point A to point B differently. The is no 1 way & there are no wrong ways. There are just ways that give you good results & those that don't.

If my suggestions aren't helpful, no worries. No one is being forced against their will. Let's not get all "YouTube" in here.

The critique I brought was two pronged.

The main critique was the self congratulatory, look at me style in which you delivered very little actual content. Let's not act now like it was only about your tips.

If you want people to interview you, so you can devulge who you know, what emotional problems you have and how you overcame all this by going less to after parties and working harder, don't lead a post promising useful tips with a 1000 word essay on yourself, but actually produce something compelling enough that other people do the interview with you. Second: don't ever call yourself a giant. It's extremely tacky.
If you are indeed one, you can be sure that it will be recognized in time and then others will call you that.


To the actual content:

I don't disagree that some of what you discovered for yourself helped you to get where you wanted to be. (otherwise you wouldn't be so ridiculously overconfident I guess).

But your conclusion from that should not be that you discovered some secret law of nature that you should now go on to teach others, because that's just the sort of kind soul you are.

Because it's not.

Steven King that you chose as an example for your "hard work leads to great results" mentality, is not just only one author, but I would argue that the work hard mentality is not what makes him an artist, it's just the necessary process for him to actually produce his art. So even for him: Artist first - hard work second.
Many authors, many way more talented than him, had a completely different lifestyle and work ethic. Some for example only writing in bursts when they were drunk off their asses (Bukowsky, Henry Miller to an extend).
The conclusion from that would hardly be: You want to be a writer?! Become an alcoholic first!, wouldn't you agree?!

And to the meat of your point: No, no one can teach you to be an artist. Becoming an artist is a state of mind, it needs a certain, original perspective on your artform. If you rely on other teaching you that, you are not an artist, you are a copy cat.

That's not to say that you shouldn't get teachers to perfect things in your abilities to perform/make your art, far from it and I never stated such a thing.
But there is one thing that they will not be able to teach you, and that is being an artist.

[regretfullySaid]

Not bad.

But if you can choose which teachers will help you, make sure they're alcoholics!

[TomViolenz]

you don't understand what being an artist means in the first place.

Just to make things clear then, what does it mean to be an artist?


In an unrelated note, I grew up listening to rock bands and while everyone or group does things differently, I found that many of them would write 4 to 5 times more songs than what was on their album, and they just picked the ones they thought would be the best. some could spend 6 months on a track, and some could write 6 tracks in a month just to get that 1 banger. I think momentum is an important factor and being aware of whether you're wasting time trying to polish a turd or not.
Just as I've been guilty of assuming before, it's easy to have the perception that 'The Greats' only create masterpieces and slave over them but in reality many of them create more quantity than quality.
As said before, there are no rules, only guidelines, but I think for most people it's better time spent just creating for the momentum, and then separating the wheat from the chaff, instead of trying to waste time on one thing trying to make it perfect, putting it through endless iterations and never being happy with it; something I think happens a lot and is counterproductive. You lose momentum that way by frustration. At least with being able to keep the process rolling you have the momentum and less pressure on yourself. The law of averages should say you'll end up with something you're proud of and that people also like, and you still have other material where even just elements of it like sound design, chord progressions or the beat could end up being used somewhere else. And with the last one I've spent some times just going through old unfinished live projects just extracting the parts that have 'mojo' and putting them all in a place to keep in mind that they can be used in future projects or even if some of them were mashed together. You won't get that with that one unfinished masterpiece you've been trying to create for the past year.

As I said above:
Being an artist requires a unique perspective on your artform. Producing a lot and then selecting from that, or trying to perfect that one piece over months on end are just two equaly valid approaches to make your art. And no blogger with self help tips can tell you how to be an artist or what approach is the right one for you.

I understand that many here are dissatisfied with their work or progress in producing it. That is in my opinion part of being an artist. You need to constantly doubt yourself, otherwise you doubting the existing state of the art is not believable (not even to yourself).

But self help books are not the solution to this. This is something you need to figure out for and by yourself and in large part you just need to learn to live with it.

[TomViolenz]

Not bad.

But if you can choose which teachers will help you, make sure they're alcoholics!

[jbw]

...Creativity is almost always a passing of the torch. Nobody creates in a vacuum...

Except that the very definition of creativity implies originality. People might mimic their teachers or their contemporaries, but once they actually create they are very much in a vacuum with their own unique style. If not then they aren't creating, only mimicking.

And before anyone goes out their and "tries" to be original realize style is the end not the means.

Your intentions are sincere, I understand that, but your assertions simply aren't true.

[stringtapper]

...Creativity is almost always a passing of the torch. Nobody creates in a vacuum...

Except that the very definition of creativity implies originality. People might mimic their teachers or their contemporaries, but once they actually create they are very much in a vacuum with their own unique style. If not then they aren't creating, only mimicking.

And before anyone goes out their and "tries" to be original realize style is the end not the means.

Your intentions are sincere, I understand that, but your assertions simply aren't true.

And your assertions are commonplace among the naïvely idealistic.

The fact is no creation is completely original. Even the earliest technologies were born of observations of the way things worked in nature. Something like a guy seeing a log roll down a hill probably sparked the idea to create the wheel.

Art is no different. Do certain individuals make great leaps in artistic expression? Of course. But even among those examples, if you analyze the output with sufficient scrutiny, you will find something about it that was born of an earlier influence.

The very fact that someone writes music for an established set of instruments or using certain electronic techniques and tools means there is an aspect of mimicry to what they're doing.

The academic electroacoustic composers who create their own instruments with things like Max are about as close as people are getting to absolute originality, and even then they are using tried and tested environments and methods to create those instruments in the first place instead of writing their own coding language to then use to make their own instruments to then make their own music. Who knows, somebody might be doing this. But hopefully you see the point of what complete and unadulterated originality would actually mean.

Personally I believe the tendency to think absolute originality exists is ego-driven, but I'm just a music theorist, not psychotherapist.

[regretfullySaid]

I don't think you have to be one to prove that to be true. Either way, we can't forget how much influence our subconscious has.
No one should think they didn't have one tune that wasn't influenced by some other catchy tune they couldn't get out of their head in the past.

I think aggressively striving to be overly original is daft; though that's doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the ends.
It's one thing to want to push the envelope, and blend existing forms for something new and different, but the whole 'look at me I'm original' is a bit vain and will probably only work on the naive,because there's been so much music for so long you're bound to find things you'd never thought existed if you went to look for them.

[TomViolenz]

But it was only one guy in this example, who invented the wheel after the log rolled down that slope, after generations upon generations had probably observed that without making that connection.

The creative moment is that one connection made for the first time. No one can teach you how to make that connection, because you are the first to make it.

Now after that connection was made, it was easy to teach how to make it. And learning to keep making it became the necessary requirement for making the next connection, which is to connect two of these with an axle to make a carriage. So yes, he was standing on the shoulders of the first guy, but the carriage was still his invention and no one could have taught him how to do it.

[regretfullySaid]

Ok so what is it again that you're fighting for? Are you saying innerstate is a fraud or everyone except the person that gets credit for an original invention is the only one that isn't a fraud or what?
After your thorough analysis I forgot what there is to give so much of a fuck about. I thought a guy was just offering some advice.

I mean if this is really an argument against genuine vs in-genuine or innate talent vs practice I'm sure there's plenty of evidence to support that most 'real' timeless great artists weren't endowed with some divine talent and shit gold every time they sneezed.

[TomViolenz]

Ok so what is it again that you're fighting for? Are you saying innerstate is a fraud or everyone except the person that gets credit for an original invention is the only one that isn't a fraud or what?
After your thorough analysis I forgot what there is to give so much of a fuck about. I thought a guy was just offering some advice.

I gave my opinion.
Many people didn't like it
Then we started talking about creativity.

That pretty much sums it up

[eyeknow]

Tom, if you are going to be a villain asshole, then just be one. Stop trying to say things like "I gave my opinion" as if you give a fuck one way or the other. Everyone knows you just like to post at every single subject getting into it with everyone.

If you've going to dish out as much shit as you do, then you need to be prepared to take it in the ass.

[regretfullySaid]

[jbw]

...Creativity is almost always a passing of the torch. Nobody creates in a vacuum...

Except that the very definition of creativity implies originality. People might mimic their teachers or their contemporaries, but once they actually create they are very much in a vacuum with their own unique style. If not then they aren't creating, only mimicking.

And before anyone goes out their and "tries" to be original realize style is the end not the means.

Your intentions are sincere, I understand that, but your assertions simply aren't true.

And your assertions are commonplace among the naïvely idealistic.

The fact is no creation is completely original. Even the earliest technologies were born of observations of the way things worked in nature. Something like a guy seeing a log roll down a hill probably sparked the idea to create the wheel.

Art is no different. Do certain individuals make great leaps in artistic expression? Of course. But even among those examples, if you analyze the output with sufficient scrutiny, you will find something about it that was born of an earlier influence.

The very fact that someone writes music for an established set of instruments or using certain electronic techniques and tools means there is an aspect of mimicry to what they're doing.

The academic electroacoustic composers who create their own instruments with things like Max are about as close as people are getting to absolute originality, and even then they are using tried and tested environments and methods to create those instruments in the first place instead of writing their own coding language to then use to make their own instruments to then make their own music. Who knows, somebody might be doing this. But hopefully you see the point of what complete and unadulterated originality would actually mean.

Personally I believe the tendency to think absolute originality exists is ego-driven, but I'm just a music theorist, not psychotherapist.

What a load of horsecrap. See, you've turned me into TomViolenz.

No but seriously, what you written? Horsecrap. You're confusing influence and technique for creativity. I'll say it again since you completely missed it: the very definition of creativity implies originality. It's true, look it up at learn something.

Yes, you learn technique, and you learn the tools you're going to use. Beyond that when you start creating what you do is your own, and that cannot be taught. If you never proceed to that point then you are not creating.

I don't know how to make it more clear. If you don't see it now, then you are either stubborn or just stupid.

[TomViolenz]

Tom, if you are going to be a villain asshole, then just be one. Stop trying to say things like "I gave my opinion" as if you give a fuck one way or the other. Everyone knows you just like to post at every single subject getting into it with everyone.

says the guy who calls others a thief for no reason

If you've going to dish out as much shit as you do, then you need to be prepared to take it in the ass.

That's more your thing, if I remember correctly---

[TomViolenz]

Except that the very definition of creativity implies originality. People might mimic their teachers or their contemporaries, but once they actually create they are very much in a vacuum with their own unique style. If not then they aren't creating, only mimicking.

And before anyone goes out their and "tries" to be original realize style is the end not the means.

Your intentions are sincere, I understand that, but your assertions simply aren't true.

And your assertions are commonplace among the naïvely idealistic.

The fact is no creation is completely original. Even the earliest technologies were born of observations of the way things worked in nature. Something like a guy seeing a log roll down a hill probably sparked the idea to create the wheel.

Art is no different. Do certain individuals make great leaps in artistic expression? Of course. But even among those examples, if you analyze the output with sufficient scrutiny, you will find something about it that was born of an earlier influence.

The very fact that someone writes music for an established set of instruments or using certain electronic techniques and tools means there is an aspect of mimicry to what they're doing.

The academic electroacoustic composers who create their own instruments with things like Max are about as close as people are getting to absolute originality, and even then they are using tried and tested environments and methods to create those instruments in the first place instead of writing their own coding language to then use to make their own instruments to then make their own music. Who knows, somebody might be doing this. But hopefully you see the point of what complete and unadulterated originality would actually mean.

Personally I believe the tendency to think absolute originality exists is ego-driven, but I'm just a music theorist, not psychotherapist.

What a load of horsecrap. See, you've turned me into TomViolenz.

There can only be one!