can technicality kill creativity?

[hello1234]

can it?

No, but video did kill the radio star.................

[pannewb]

maybe its not what everyone else is getting at...
I find that with my old program, which had no midi at all, that I had to think up ways to get around this to get the song out. It happened that all my mixes made with my old program are more complex and thick than the amazing sounds and single lines i do now with vsts. It has not hampered but redirected my creativity in my opinion.
The blind man cannot dream of color, I say.
Music theory is a very fancy word for "too lazy to continue in piano". Not that piano is such an necessary skill either, but I think that if i could do some more piano and up the technicality on my side, (Beethoven's Sixth Symphony done by a soundfont completely made from dog squeaky toys... ) Sure, its not necessary, and theres some great music out there made by people with about as much experience with a keyboard as a fruitbat, but i think that those with skill on their side make a different kind of sound to those who don't. If mad skillz is your thing or if its not.
Rock on.

[Shatner's Bassoon]

I see theory as a fairly neutral thing; without it we'd most likely come up with the same kinds of rules instinctively because it sounds good. Surely it makes sense to have that information available for people to use or not use as they wish.

For example, learning scales and modes has had a massive effect on my guitar skills, and has opened up more creative avenues than it's closed. Now I know the patterns instinctively, I can concentrate more on the creative side of playing melodies or whatever and not have to worry about hitting wrong notes all the time. No doubt if I'd worked hard enough at it, I'd have eventually arrived at more or less the exact same knowledge of what notes sound good over what chord from sheer experience.

And obviously, knowing and understanding theory cannot possibly physically restrain you from being creative, that is just silly! It's entirely a psychological thing based on exactly these flawed assumptions about theory.

Dan

EDIT. If you were thinking more of technology killing creativity, I think there may be a shred of truth there. I for one find it very easy to get stuck in a situation where I just have too many possible choices! Again, this is probably more of a psychological blag than any kind of causal link between technology/technicality and diminished creativity.

[birrbits]

Yes I think it can, or at least it can be used as an excuse to stifle creativity.

Example: I spend several months rewiring my studio, making optimized little changes, adding this piece of gear & that, till it becomes so complex I dont remember how to press "go". I dream of the days when I had just a casio, a crappy guitar and a fostex 4 track.....

Solution: I sell 2/3 of it on ebay, presto, im writing music again!

I realize you are refering to technicality in music, but i think the example still holds...

[bugs]

Technically, no.

What generally kills creativity is poor skills. Everybody has ideas, executing them is deal.

[dystonia_ek]

If technique remains transparent (i.e. doesn't steal the focus away from the totality of the music) then it shouldn't theoretically interfere. Where it's dangerous is in its tendency to force people into smaller and smaller compositional bounds (i.e. the more rules you have to consider, the less free you are in your compositional or even conceptual choices), resulting in a lot of music that's totally predictable - the listener knows what's coming long before it happens (which is why I'd rather hear Jandek play guitar than Yngvie Malmsteen, I guess). But there are, to be fair, many artists who have managed to avoid this trap .

[Shatner's Bassoon]

If technique remains transparent (i.e. doesn't steal the focus away from the totality of the music) then it shouldn't theoretically interfere. Where it's dangerous is in its tendency to force people into smaller and smaller compositional bounds (i.e. the more rules you have to consider, the less free you are in your compositional or even conceptual choices), resulting in a lot of music that's totally predictable - the listener knows what's coming long before it happens (which is why I'd rather hear Jandek play guitar than Yngvie Malmsteen, I guess). But there are, to be fair, many artists who have managed to avoid this trap .

Exactly. I'd go so far as to say that the relative scarcity of musicians who actively try to break new grounds is more due to the overall attitude of the major record labels, and sadly, what seems like the majority of artists, than anything to do with theory.

Dan

[dystonia_ek]

If technique remains transparent (i.e. doesn't steal the focus away from the totality of the music) then it shouldn't theoretically interfere. Where it's dangerous is in its tendency to force people into smaller and smaller compositional bounds (i.e. the more rules you have to consider, the less free you are in your compositional or even conceptual choices), resulting in a lot of music that's totally predictable - the listener knows what's coming long before it happens (which is why I'd rather hear Jandek play guitar than Yngvie Malmsteen, I guess). But there are, to be fair, many artists who have managed to avoid this trap .

Exactly. I'd go so far as to say that the relative scarcity of musicians who actively try to break new grounds is more due to the overall attitude of the major record labels, and sadly, what seems like the majority of artists, than anything to do with theory.

Dan

Sad, but true. And not just the majors - a lot of indies are just as prone to that sort of thing.

[rpc9943]

heh I just like figuring my own songs as they come out of me. No scales, ideas. Sure I've crafted my "own" scales from playing by ear, but it most likely fits in a scale of some sort, but I like feeling my way around much more than learning the scales and then playing "Creatively" on them

RonC

[Steven West]

I don't think it's the 'technicality' so much as the inundation and saturation of it now? Back in the 70's, you may have had 5 or 6 synth makers (Moog, Arp, Roland, Korg, Oberheim) who had 'affordable synths' and BIG expensive synths. But nowadays we're in the hundreds if not more - 10 - 15 of which make announcements here daily as to this new thing, new features, group buys, etc.

That, to me kills ones creativity if you're constantly anticipating and finding fault with something from the get go. Whether it's good or buggy.

[opiadream]

can it?

No, but video did kill the radio star.................

pfft, its all in your mind
or in your car...

[whiteboycomputernoise]

I dont think technicality is the issue so much as musical focus. Being overly technical about anything is merely a distraction to the primary purpose or goal. The technical aspects of anything is merely an aspect and should not be reguarded as the whole.
My guess on the freqeuncy of overtechnicality we see in music is because of a trend of a "technical thinking style" which is no doubt a side effect of the explosion of music technology media such as this forum, keyboard mag, mix mag, pc world, computer music, tape op, etc.
Throughout history humans unconciously copy each other like monkeys and somehow many end up making the same mistakes million times like fish biting onto a hook. I dont see this as a bad way of life, it is just a mere suggestion as to why musicians and artists get distracted in the technical issues instead of making very cool sounds and or music.
Being technical about anything was never bad and it never will be. Getting distracted in the small details of life rather than realizing the whole has always been the human condition. I hope that we can all see tht this is an age old argument.
Being a know it all is just a phase of nerd development which eventualy fades away into issues of merit. I wish you all the best of luck in anything you do.
For some, simply being technical and recognizing components of a musical protocol, and communicating that understanding to other humans is the goal-in most music technology magazines for instance, or perhaps in the case for music teachers or professors.
For others, making actual music is more of the goal, and so technical aspects are not reguarded with such a high priority.
And again, for others, making "technical" music is the goal, so hats off steve vai and autechre/aphex twin/squarepusher.

I wish you all the best of luck on everything you guys identify yourselves as doing with sound and hope you all reazlize that there's room for all of us in this huge mess of music. It's a dichotomy.

[herodotus]

can it?

No, but video did kill the radio star.................

pfft, its all in your mind
or in your car...

Ooh ah oh

[Manc Chris]

Something to remember. FIRST came the music. Someone somewhere. long ago, picked up an instrument ... and wrote a piece of music.
This probably went on for years, until some wag decided to make it all official, and produce a 'how to' book. Probably called "The oafs guide to aural merriment" or something.

Either way, it was the introduction of convention.

But the music came first

[CypherOne]

so neither the chicken or the egg? It was the music all along...