This is an interesting concept - that writing songs and computer programming have a lot in common - but really the writer's (CD Baby founder Derek Sivers) vision is far too narrow - he's just comparing the creative operations he happens to be familiar with - the real issue here is the commonality of affect on the creator of most ANY creative endeavor.
- I'll name a few ways that come to mind so far, and then maybe some other musician/programmers can contribute some more to the list.
It starts with a vague concept of something that could/should exist, then is slowly crafted towards that vision, like a sculpture.
Both songwriting and user-interface design make you constantly put yourself in the audience's shoes - to make sure they understand what you're trying to express. Will they understand your turn of phrase? Will they know where to click to complete the form?
Both songwriting and user-interface design need to hold the audience's attention all the way through, knowing that one wrong decision might lose them forever.
One big problem really wraps around dozens of little problems. Finding the right chord, the right query, the right phrase, the right page-layout. These little problems are the addictive potato-chips that keep me going.
Every person on earth would solve these problems (both little and big) a little bit differently.
Even trying to imitate someone else's creation will make your own unique version of it. Imitation is a great way to learn. Humans are imperfect mirrors.
I resist starting. I'll make 1000 distractions for myself. But once I start, and get into it, it's the best thing in the world and I don't want to stop.
It makes me jump out of bed at 2 AM wanting to try the ideas in my head to see if they work.
Too much repetition, and it's boring. Not enough repetition, and it's hard to understand. (in programming's case this means the code, not the final product)
Once you're done you want to show off your creation to the world.
Article comments
1 - Mark Saleski
i dunno...while writing software is certainly a creative thing, this looks to me like somebody who's so in love with the process that he's willing to draw the parallels.
i've written software, music and words and i'd say that there's far more mystery to the process when music and words are involved.
or, i could just be burned out on writing software.
take your pick.
2 - TDavid
Mark - I thought you were just burned out on Microsoft? ;)
3 - Mark Saleski
hey, i only gave you two choices!
troublemaker!
4 - TDavid
lol ... was the third choice wrong? :)
5 - Mark Saleski
nope. but not exclusively.
6 - Shark
I remember in High School; I was an aspiring young intellectual with just enough knowledge to be dangerous to myself and my society; got a writing assignment in English class to "explain something." I chose the creative process (and it sorta resembled the above essay).
My teacher -- who was very smart and very cool -- called me over for a 'private' conference and said, "Don't ever do that. No. No. No. Don't ever, ever do that, okay."
Words to live by, since there are few ways to sound sillier than trying to 'explain' such ethereal matters.
BTW: I'm guessing that Sivers is about 14 years old and will be sorry he wrote this someday?
7 - duane
I think the comparison is a bit of a reach. It sounds like Sivers is trying to elevate himself. I deal with science things every day. I think up problems, then try to solve them. There is some creativity involved in that process. I report my results. My "audience" responds with approval, disapproval, or indifference, much like what a songwriter is subjected to. The difference is that there is an objective reality in which scientists, engineers, and programmers operate. A program is judged on how well it accomplishes a predetermined function, and if it actually helps (or entertains) anyone. A scientific model is judged according to how well it reproduces empirical data, and whether or not anyone gives a damn. Music, on the other hand (and I want to talk about actual music, not Britneyish mass-produced image-based tripe), is not judged strictly by objective criteria. A songwriter attempts to engage the emotions of the listener. There is no flow-chart for this. It's obscure. There are no equations, no rules, no laws. Unlike programming, the emphasis is on aesthetic appeal rather than function. Unlike science, the emphasis is on expression of mental states through sound, words, and the interplay of sound and words, rather than describing an objective reality, where there are right and wrong answers to be identified. One might appreciate the "beauty" of a scientific theory, or the creatively clever construction of an efficient algorithm, but the aesthetic aspects of science and programming are secondary to function and description.
Suffice to say that almost any semi-smart person can learn to be a capable programmer. By comparison, very few people have the necessary skills to be a capable songwriter. You don't need to be smart to write good songs, although some musical knowledge provides the writer with more tools. Some part of songwriting can be learned, but that extra step, writing something of beauty and power, is a very big step.