We frequently discuss about rules.
It easy to understand why: this is an open community so we are coming from incredibly different cultures, stories and curricula.
Several people want to make music and find difficult to understand why we have boring rules to follow, even if everybody is fashinated by the objective fact that eductaed composers can quickly build wonderful music, but beginners are not able to. then beginners are anxious of learning some "quick trick" to improve, and get lost in the forrest of strange ununderstandable systems and methods...
So the big fight about instinct, ear, and genious, against the study, the hard work, and the structured rule application begins.
And EVERY TIME, somebody say that rules are just a postume work of boring theorist that try to understand what some spontaneous genious did instinctively following only the ear and good taste.
I don't have any historical evidence of that, being the history of music showing the opposite (educated music, like medieval poliphony up to ars nova, begin to be based on mathematics and philosophy, before the "good taste" can select the best of it, and later academy and workshops were created were the composers were educated to very rigid "secrets of the art", and several of the most important composers of the past were also teaching and theoricians theirself).
No one of the big artists of the past, from Jusquin up to Schoenberg, from Palestrina up to J.Williams were writing without a long academic training.
They were just evolving and updating according creativity and taste of the time what they learned, building new bricks over the previous wall.
Who can provide some serious litterature about "naturally born" educated music theory? please share it with me, I will be happy reading those studies and checking if they can convince me with evidence of the opposite.
Thanks in advance to all the contributors...