I find that if I know what I want in a piece, that helps a lot. The first phases can take a long time – I'm floating around, trying to figure out what I'm doing. It's a matter of working out what the landscape of the piece is and how the musical language of that piece works. Having a clear idea of what I'm doing also means I can make something coherent and keep a train of thought going through the whole process of writing the work.

As for inspiration, it does come but I don't wait for it – usually it takes some work for me to figure out what it is I want to do, and then the inspiration will come once I figure out how to tackle a problem I've been mulling over in my head for some time.

 

for a time, most of my works were directly inspired by the ideas in other works (often not very well known ones) which started things off after which things just developed spontaneously in their own direction. In others there may be a concept or simply I felt it was time to write another symphony, quartet or whatever. In the case of my most recent work, it was inspired by the sounds in a specific virtual library -- actually the second time this has happened.

I often find the first 2-3 minutes of a work I'm blundering around aimlessly but then usually often quite suddenly, I get a clearer idea of how things are supposed to progress and then write fairly quickly. Sometimes I have ideas in my head or a dream but often as not, I simply work out themes on the keyboard. Once I know exactly what I'm trying to say emotionally, the music more or less writes itself

 

I'm not a composer of music, though I do like to write and have been told I'm not bad at it. I write in a capacity where I have to meet deadlines. When I have a writer's block I put it down for a while, take a walk, play chess, do crossword puzzles, cryptograms, anagrams, listen to music (classical, of course!), and just when I think I won't make the deadline something comes to me, sometimes in the middle of the day and other times in the middle of the night; and it's weird to me how something that started off so difficult can start to come together so naturally. Then the editing process is also hard work but it's not as stressful because the ideas and the form of it have already been established. I don't know if the same experience can be applied to musical composition.

 

No rules about this really. Or perhaps there is only one rule - you need to make (or have) the space where inspiration can get through. So personal anxieties, irksome work, family duties and so on are probably not that great for creativity. I would say waking up in the morning with the beginnings of a tune is a nice way to move into composing. Strangely I have often found hangovers quite conducive to composition. Routine repetitive housework is OK - space for the mind to find a melody. Probably for me, just being in free flow at the keyboard is the most productive. A little phrase catches your ear and then being at the keyboard you can develop it very quickly. Obviously a work by another composer can often be a good starting point. Chopin was inspired by Beethoven, so why not?

 

I always like to find some definitions first off, ones that may help to create a soundworld. That might be something like extracting as much musical inference from a chord as I can get, or perhaps work with bespoke scales, or sets of notes and see if I can extract any useful material. Once done I then like to improvise and generally grub around in the musical dirt, a) to get a feel for the space and b) to see if I can find anything that will set off a spark or some kind of intuitive recognition. Nothing is really set unless I get a sniff of an idea. Well that's the idea in theory, in reality it can be damn well messy and often is especially when ideas start to come and dictate otherwise.
Either way I'm a firm believer in not waiting around for inspiration, if it's going to come, it will only do so if the ground is already part set.

A composer once said (I can't remember who it was and I'll have to paraphrase somewhat too), that one should never bother composing unless the not composing becomes bothersome....wise words ???

 

A composer once said (I can't remember who it was and I'll have to paraphrase somewhat too), that one should never bother composing unless the not composing becomes bothersome....wise words ???

excellent philosophy!

 

Sometimes I also have to respect deadlines (f.e. for a concert), but of course they are not that strict like for professional assignments.

Then I also force myself to be creative - either by improvising on a keyboard, or by lying down on a couch and imagining the music in my head. But the results are usually better if I can take the time for a hike or a cycling tour. Of course this method takes longer, so I use it only for the initial ideas, or when I'm stuck somewhere and need different ideas.

When I'm stuck it sometimes also helps for me to hear the new piece in a loop while doing something completely different (like my normal job as a software developer).

 

In my opinion it helps first to have a "sense of life." To produce great art requires the artist to effectively convey that sense. You mentioned nature and that is certainly a great source of inspiration. When I think of nature I imagine a benevolent and beautiful universe and/or the heroic nature of (at least some of) mankind. This could explain why pictures of beautiful mountain scenery and imagining heroic deeds seem to fit together. It is also possible to create great art if one's sense of life is dark and frightening (obviously the opposite of my own view), because great art is about how effectively the artist conveys the sense and not what the particular sense is.

It is not necessary to have a particular philosophy in order to have a sense of life, but the artist should strive to have one, even if is some sort of general feeling about the nature of existence.

 

In my opinion it helps first to have a "sense of life." To produce great art requires the artist to effectively convey that sense. You mentioned nature and that is certainly a great source of inspiration. When I think of nature I imagine a benevolent and beautiful universe and/or the heroic nature of (at least some of) mankind. This could explain why pictures of beautiful mountain scenery and imagining heroic deeds seem to fit together.
....................

I don't have heroic feelings about nature (in the sense of being superior in any way). But maybe we mean similar things (only use different words). When I'm in the nature, I have generally stronger feelings about many things when I feel the beauty, power, peace and dangers of nature. Maybe this triggers inspiration much more often for me than when I'm in town.

Generally I was thinking not just about pure inspiration, but also working on the raw material after sketching. Normally if I'm coming up with a theme (or themes) I just have to wait for it to hit me. However the idea that this is some sort of mystical inspiration is misleading. Usually when the first thoughts occur it stems from the nature and requirements of the projected work itself...e.g. 'piece based upon the sea..' or some work using a particular set of technical ideas. This then gets internalised in he back of the mind and the cogs start turning.
.......................

As you probably know, I'm still an amateur composer. But I've also experienced both workflows:

• receiving an inspiration completely out of the blue (mostly in nature) => this is my favourite. I try to record these ideas by humming / tapping / whistling / beatboxing on a video and use them later as a starting point for a new piece
• Meditating on a good continuation when I'm stuck somewhere (or when I want to create a new specific piece). This works best when I'm lying on the couch and trying to imagine the sounds of possible continuation versions - when I don't fall asleep in the meantime

 

I almost just started a new thread about (technical) working methods. However I think this thread covers it.

Generally I was thinking not just about pure inspiration, but also working on the raw material after sketching. Normally if I'm coming up with a theme (or themes) I just have to wait for it to hit me. However the idea that this is some sort of mystical inspiration is misleading. Usually when the first thoughts occur it stems from the nature and requirements of the projected work itself...e.g. 'piece based upon the sea..' or some work using a particular set of technical ideas. This then gets internalised in he back of the mind and the cogs start turning.

This is really what 'inspiration' is. The solutions, as it were, that are generated when you aren't directly considering the question. So of course it's sometimes at an inopportune moment. I do have a little notebook on me most of the time when out just in case, and when I forget it I just hum/whistle/think the melody/harmonic shapes over and over so I can at least keep it in mind until I get home.

The 'technical' things though. I wondered how others go about this. Often I throw out stuff either onto paper or nowadays - if it is for larger forces - into software and then there's that long process of non-linear editing and rewriting. This happens in massive blocks, juggling e.g. the woodwind section; which I'll just be correcting/rewriting right there on the page all over the place and in effect 'composing' on the spot. Then shifting to, say, the strings and brasses to meet this new vision. And that's where the development of being able to always 'see' in your mind one grand whole is crucial. It's difficult sometimes, but also exhilarating. Usually when this is happening I start to come up with more and better internal melodies/countermelodies/melody fragments between instruments and sections.

On the whole I wouldn't refer to myself as an 'artist' or composer, because as an orchestrator and arranger I've had to work a lot of with other people's initial work; though even there that process requires invention and composition. For my own work I operate in much the same way. Though the origin and development of initial material takes more time.

 

I guess most of you have your own methods to set yourself in the right mood for receiving inspirations. Which methods work best for you?

I no longer write classical music but have spent the last almost 40 years as a songwriter, in Nashville, now semi-retired in a rural cabin in a small county in middle Tennessee. But inspiration comes in a flash, that I later develop. I have taken to keeping a small digital recorder for when that inspiration comes and I want to capture the lyric or idea quickly.

I learned long ago that I can't wait for inspiration, but find that it comes more often the more active I am. IOW, I learned how to write everyday - staring at the empty page and forcing out some lyrics or chords/melody. Eventually something will catch my fancy and I'll make a note of it, and sometimes limk it with one of the inspired ideas on my little recorder.

For the last four or five years I've been working on a long term project with a large cast of related characters, so half of the work of what to write about is done. Now I come up with stories, situations, and background, for these characters, going back into their past with previous generations, and branches of the family, usually tying in some historical period or event.

To sum up:

1) write everyday

2) keep a record of your early ideas

3) have some context for your work

 

After receiving the inspiration (typically from nature) then the next step is to decide on the spectrum of tonal to atonal means of expression. I tend to fall on the side of tonality because, for me, it provides the broadest range to evoke and/or suggest in the listener the broadest range of possible emotions. But too much tonality without proper variation will induce boredom in the listener, just as unremitting atonality will produce the same.

 

I don't tend to derive ideas 'from nature'. I'd need clarity on this, I'm taking it to mean 'from the natural world' but it might be being used as 'naturally occurring' as in not based upon reflection. More often it's on the basis of interesting, to me at least, ideas in melody or tone colour. Or some idea around a device. I tend more towards the idea of 'etude', so that there might be something based around e.g. an ostinato figure or around a particular scale. I find this generates a lot of ideas, even if the core thing fades into the background. It's more like a catalyst than the idea itself.

Nevertheless there are times when I just absently think of a melodic 'shape'. I say 'shape' because I imagine it being enveloped in orchestration. Every composer must have this, that sort of thing where it plays in your head and you have rapid ideas where you hear it orchestrated in certain ways?

In general though I don't believe in 'inspiration' as a sort of thing that comes into you intact. Really these are latent accumulated thoughts, and I'm not too proud to say that a lot of ideas must come from a lifetime of listening and also some more recent listening.

 

I think we all make assumptions when we use words like "nature." For example, if I have a dream that inspires me to write a symphony, then my dream could also be thought of as coming from nature. I am a product of nature and so are my dreams. Perhaps "existence" would be a better word. A landscape is a particular type of nature, and that may inspire us more than dreams.

 

That's very good. I can hear in my head the/a bassliine being played on a fretless bass guitar. I already feel like arranging it for a jazz quartet!

 

I hope the idea is somewhat recognizable in the end result (2nd link)

So far, I mostly try to be an active part when my music is recorded, so a piano has to be in it

But I'll definetly also write something where I don't play myself - hope I'll find some good musicians interested to play it!

 

When I was more naive, I tried to find what I could do to have inspiration strike, which never happens. The result of that when I do feel something I might feel emotionally attached to at the time, but later think it's crap. I think my best ideas were from trying out something, and failing to make it work, which lay the groundwork for something better. For me at least it takes a lot of concentration, rehearing, and tweaking, while tackling things every step of the way. Most of it is not fun.

 

I expect to have at least a dozen false starts and unusable material before things start to work. It's not always like this, but I keep that in mind to remind myself that it's not usually a one-shot success and everything requires work and attention. Unless I've done a job to a tight deadline I'm more content to let something brew. In fact a lot of material or ideas that end up being used is material from the drawer. After having done something from 'inspiration' I really like to file it away and come back to it. Weeks or months later in order to discover whether my enthusiasm spectacles made me see something middling as something better. Some (prose) writers tend do this and it makes it easy to edit later. Though I never throw everything out. Not so long ago I reworked something I'd started and abandoned a long time ago when I was 16 and not really equipped for writing full orchestral scores. I probably only kept the score because it was written on very nice, cream-coloured full score paper.😂 Yet there were interesting melodies and other bits and pieces.

Worst thing I've ever done in this sense was finding an old work for string quartet and being astonished how good the melodic material was. So I started improving it until I realised it was a school exercise in writing for a quartet, but that the melody came from Mussorgsky! Almost became a plagiarist.

 

Last week I was at an 'open day' event for potential students of music at a college, far after the summer no doubt. It was accidental, because I was there over three days for something else entirely. In any case there was a day where each 'department' (though they're not really 'departments' even if the classes are separate) presented itself, and I sat in on some and assisted.

Those there for composition were given a list of suggestions from which to choose - since this has to be expedited! - which included ideas relating to 'concrete' things: a landscape, the weather etc. And also less concrete: a feeling, an idea, a 'plan' or pattern. There were also 8-bar phrase things, melody fragments or harmonic ideas to take and build upon.

Pretty much everyone was working on software, though a piano was available and anyone preferring to use their own other instrument could do that. What I noticed was this: almost everyone working on the computers worked in small blocks, and that this was often a cause of 'blockage' in terms of how to move forward. Unless someone took a given melody there was a strong tendency to build things in 4-bars or as little as 2. Is this due to the use of software? There was a bassoonist who was devising phrases and ideas on the bassoon and noting these down. Non-linear ideas and also noting down harmonic ideas. I was impressed by this, because when she got onto the software I noticed she wasn't just thumping it all into the first 24 bars, but playing with it through the arrangement and breaking it up into new ideas.

It made me think of this thread and I asked her 'how she was working'. Some interesting responses: that she was firstly approaching it through her particular instrument (the end product was for woodwind quartet); that the ideas arrived to her as 'shapes and colours' in tone I suppose; that she wasn't thinking about long melodies or sections, but condensed ideas to unravel...and some 'I don't know really', which is the thing when you know what you're doing in your head, but can't explain it all. The overall result was only two and half minutes, but I liked it at lot. Probably because it had a slight neo-classic character.

There were some other good ones, but this stood out to me and I think it was due to the approach. I wonder how many 'composers' get some sort of idea and then plonk themselves in front of an empty score on a computer like a writer with clean sheet of paper in a typewriter? And how this can kill off creativity. Or maybe not for some, who say they write directly into full scores. I know tat doesn't always work for me, if ever. Normally I play about on a piano and very often I render things into smaller ensembles before expanding, even if I can 'hear' a mental idea of something far bigger

 

My first step (after collecting an inspiration) is mostly to explore the different possibilities of a continuation. I'm experimenting which continuation of the current phrase sounds best to me - in this order:

• in my imagination / inner ear
• with a keyboard (different instrument samples)
• as a playback of my notation software (so far I mostly compose for a future instrumental play)

But I don't think in 2 or 4 bars about the continuation, it's an undefined number of bars for me.

The coherence comes later for me, I then have to reorder sections/phrases and improve the development of the motifs. This method clearly has some disadvantages, but so far it seems to fit my creative output quite well. Of course I also have to check later if the symmetry of the bars is somehow logical. Otherwise I tend to start the next section after 20 or 24 bars

Which can be also fine, but it should happen on purpose (which it often doesn't in my first drafts).

But of course I also have to struggle too with this method. Sometimes I can't find an interesting continuation at all - and then I either have to leave it for the day, or also "plonk away" if there's too little time.

I can' tell much about composing for bigger orchestration, as I have too little experience there (I wrote only 2 orchestral pieces so far, see "Aletsch glacier" and "Gran Paradiso" in my YT-channel).