Some people work best in collaboration like a day job. Others work best all alone, creating late into the night.
Some like to draw charts on paper, analyze, discuss. Others like to just shut up and do it, letting the creation speak for itself.
Both start with an initial flash of inspiration, then take a hell of a lot of work to make it into reality.
Being the programmer in the company is like being the songwriter in the band. You're the one that creates the thing that the rest of the organization is there to promote and support.
It's best to keep the "suits", the business-folks, away from the creative process, until you have something you're ready to show them.
Your creation is often judged by how much money it could make, though that's another way of saying "how many people will like it enough to pay money to have it".
... though if even a few people's lives are made better by your creation, that's satisfaction enough.
Most real songwriters and programmers would be doing this even if they never made a dime.
The sly programmer or musician puts little things in the final product that the general public will never notice, but a few peers in-the-know will catch the subtle trick and laugh out loud in admiration. (Or even if nobody else notices, it's an immense sense of self-satisfaction.)
Some of your worst songs or programs had a brilliant idea inside, that you can re-use many times.
I agree with most of what he has to say, especially about putting it off until inspiration flashes, but sometimes inspiration doesn't flash until you stop waiting, start doing, and cobble it together from there: the old "most of inspiration is perspiration" saw. But when the flash does come, it is a beautiful and magical thing. Keep something to write with by your bed so you don't lose those nocturnal gifts.
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.