Terrified of Composing!

I'm terrified of composing.

I love it, more than anything, but the process scares me. I look at a blank page of staff paper and want to go hide in my favorite book or the refrigerator or anything mindless. It's because, I think, I'm afraid of what will happen once I get to the end of writing down whatever two measures I've got running through my head. Einstein was right when he said, "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" -- I've realized that for most of a piece, you can't rely on intuition alone, but instead you have to decide how the piece goes. Reminding myself of that has helped me write beyond whatever bits invent themselves in my mind's ear, but forcing myself to stick with it for the first few minutes (while the fear is prevalent) is still hard. I'm coming out of a composition slump, maybe that has something to do with it. Because it's gotten much better over the last couple of months, but for now it's still there.

My suitemate at college and I share this problem -- he's got it with writing papers. Anybody else experience it with composition?

Um, big question first, why?

What are you afraid will happen when you finish writing something down?

What IS there to fear? Your music IS yourself, surely you're not afraid of yourself? :)

Um, big question first, why?

What are you afraid will happen when you finish writing something down?

What IS there to fear? Your music IS yourself, surely you're not afraid of yourself? :)

I hope he answers this as well, but here is why for me.

Fear of rejection

Fear of writer's block

Fear of the notes becoming ferocious composer eating zombies

Fear of writing someone else's music while the whole time thinking it was mine

Fear of Fear (thanks Franklin)

Fear of carpal tunnel syndrome

Fear that my muse is off taking a nap and I am on my own

And this list doesn't even include the irrational fears.

I have major writer's block right now.

I actually don't fear finishing the piece, because once I begin its like a train and i just go and go and then its done.

I just have a problem starting, letting the music come to me about what I want to create.

One thing you shouldn't do is force yourself to write. A creative work should gestate in the mind as long as it needs to -- trying to get it down before it's ready interrupts the process.

I'll sometimes go 3 or 4 weeks without writing any music or code, just reading up on technique and keeping my mind sharp, until it rushes out of me all at once.

Sometimes, though, you have to write (this being mainly for professionals or anyone who has a deadline that must be met). I think it's best, if you are going to be writing a lot, to learn how to write even when not inspired. If something inspires you along the way, then great, but until then just keep practicing. Even great masters of composing got better with time. Sometimes, I suppose, you just have to grit your teeth and do it.

When you HAVE to write you just do it. Technique comes in and that's it really! The music is not the best, but it should at least float above surface, otherwise you're not a professional.

But to what rienzi says: That 3-4 weeks time (for me it may be months), I consider it to be crucial to my writing and composing. The idea, the passion, the message, everything will come to that period. When I finaly sit down to write it will be short, exactly because everything will already be in my head. Hope it makes sense...

I think it's also helpful to keep in mind that when you sit down and write something, it doesn't have to be any sort of final product.

Treat your initial draft(s) as "composites" of ideas - in other words, you don't have to think of them as "organized," they can just be a collection of motives, themes, harmonies, etc. Then, you can work with the ideas ideas from "composites" as you work on later drafts. These slow steps might make the process less daunting.

I've been in a slump lately... I can't seem to finish any peices and now I haven't started writing anything new in like a week beacause I'm afraid of not finishing it. I think I don't finish pieces because I am always trying to make them better and trying to fit something else in or add something to the end. I just won't accept that it is finished and that it is perfectly fine the way it is.

"you can't rely on intuition alone"

I've noticed that this is especially true when I use something like Finale or Sibelius or blank paper to compose. I get so perfectionist that I am afraid to write a single note down. However, when I improvise, I find it easier to break away from this perfectionism and just let it fly. There have been times when I really didn't feel like improvising (composing, for me), and even felt (that's the key word) like I was in a slump, but then sat down and improvised what I thought was the best thing I had made so far. And the nice thing about improv is, unless you're a cognitive genius, it is impossible to think it out beforehand and you DO rely on intuition alone.

That's just my experience...maybe it could work for you, maybe not. But if you haven't tried it, it might become a valuable tool in your arsenal of composing techniques.

I've got issues concerning consistency and flow while composing. All of my compositions are actually just starting ideas, and it's not that I don't possess the technique (on the contrary, I'm attending the Faculty of Arts in Niš, Serbia right now, first year violinist), but I just can't conjure anything further from the start! Nothing inspiring ever comes to mind, and nothing I try to continue by thinking alone really satisfies me! It's like I can't unleash my talent, and it only keeps popping up very occasionally in small fragments. If I try to force myself into continuing to compose these same bits after a pause of any length, I end up looking at the score cluelessly with a different emotion that won't suit it well like the first inital one would, had it continued there and then by my virtue. And no, I don't really adore minimalist music, and not being able to conceive lengthier ideas is equal to surrendering and submitting to one's lack of mindpower and creative abilities, in my opinion. This apparent lack of inspiration may be due to the lack of quality in the contemporary commercial music, or it may be not; but the point remains.

Also, what bothers me extremely is the fact that know only how to play violin and bass guitar well. My piano skills are those of an elementary music school second-grader at best, and no other instrument I even know how to touch lends such a freedom in both melodic and harmonic improvisation. My own instrument doesn't help there much more: though my improvisation skills are much greater with violin than any other instrument, I'm still way too technique-dependent, because there are limits such as the number of the strings/notes played at once (darn you, unobtainable Bach/Vega/Baroque bow!), and the size of one's left hand (a.k.a. stretching abilities); furthermore, the tuning itself is hopelessly stuck to the fifths, and is not really to be experimented with, mainly because of the physical limits of the strings as well (and there is really very little musical equipment in Serbia, comparing even to average European standards, I'd say).

It's just no good here after all.They're choking all the talented minds here by offering to teach just low-level, extremely boring technical knowledge of handling the SATB by using harmonic resources only up to and including those used in the early Romantic era; and of composing inventions and fugues, again, by using those same completely uninspiring harmonic resources.

In the end, I improvise and "almost compose" best by singing (sometimes the violin helps me too). The problem is, when I'm just unwinding melodies like that, I'm not entirely conscious of them (because I'm usually doing something else on my PC while it's happening), and I end up not really remembering any of it. The only thing I could do is try to record these melody-storming sessions, since it just wouldn't be anything like it if I went thinking about it all (and it would kinda violate at least a part of the definition of 'improvisation'). Any advices regarding this would be very appreciated, and I'm pretty sure it's got to do with some fears of mine after all. Thanks in advance!

P.S. I use programmes such as Anvil Studio, Guitar Pro 5 and Sibelius 5 and 6 to write my music down, and despite being an excellent student ever since I started going to both music and regular elementary schools, I'm not too rich in life experiences (but I am only 18, so I guess there'll be plenty of it yet to come).

It's just no good here after all.They're choking all the talented minds here by offering to teach just low-level, extremely boring technical knowledge of handling the SATB by using harmonic resources only up to and including those used in the early Romantic era; and of composing inventions and fugues, again, by using those same completely uninspiring harmonic resources.

It's very important because it teaches us how our ears hear music and what makes sense to them. It gives a context to how composers in the past thought about such music and then decided to change it at the desired time. My advice would be to listen to as much music as possible, Look what Bach did with rather "uninspiring" harmonic resources. My advice to you would be to listen to as much music as possible, start learning piano, and not worry about bad results when you compose. Don't feel bad about writing something that you think isn't that great. A perfectionist attitude toward composition can really stifle it. Also definitely record yourself messing around, it at least gives you something more tangible to grasp on to when you have melodies and such running through your mind. Also, trust your intuition, your ears know more than your eyes.

Intuition is the worst tool for composing. Intuition will only produce something you've already heard.

The only way to write music with your own voice is to make conscious decisions about how it will sound.

I must disagree with you here. I don't think you can completely avoid producing what you've already heard, it's just that it's only really worth if it's a part of you and your intuition. That's how I see it.

It's very important because it teaches us how our ears hear music and what makes sense to them. It gives a context to how composers in the past thought about such music and then decided to change it at the desired time. My advice would be to listen to as much music as possible, Look what Bach did with rather "uninspiring" harmonic resources. My advice to you would be to listen to as much music as possible, start learning piano, and not worry about bad results when you compose. Don't feel bad about writing something that you think isn't that great. A perfectionist attitude toward composition can really stifle it. Also definitely record yourself messing around, it at least gives you something more tangible to grasp on to when you have melodies and such running through your mind. Also, trust your intuition, your ears know more than your eyes.

J. S. Bach is my favourite composer, for the record. :phones: And yes, he does seem to make anything however tonal or modal sound great, because it's a part of his craftsmanship skill, which he masterfully embodies in his fugues and other polyphonic forms, producing works full of vast content and architectural beauty that reaches to us even today! He repeats himself persistently and constantly through the smallest details even inside just phrases of every work he composes, and that's why I like his music so much! He gives me the feeling I really can use my not too advanced theoretical and constructional knowledge to maximum effect after all. When composing fugues, I almost never feel I need to go beyond relatively simple tonality, even less beyond tonality as a whole!

What I do feel I need to go beyond, however, are the formal limitations we've been taught in the middle school. No one taught us all the ways to break them. Even just some of these ways would've already been most helpful. I'm arguing that, once you get a firm grasp of any traditional musical concept (such as (the aforementioned) harmony up to the early Romantic period), rules surrounding it start strangling your creativity if you must follow them, if it's your job to, like mine was of a pupil. So, it's not the simplicity that troubles me, it's the rules and regulations that, once removed, wouldn't harm the quality of music in any way. Whether my intuition leads me towards the clarity and simplicity of Baroque and Classical periods, or towards the vast richness and complexity of Romantic and post-Romantic waters, is an entirely different matter, in my humble opinion. In any case, thanks for all your advice!

Spoken like a true amateur. You don't realize how important it is until you submit and take it seriously.

Please don't get me wrong, of course I do believe there is true, natural quality in the emotion of everything generally dogmatic as Classical, be it music or other arts, and I'm sorry if I hadn't made it clear already. That understood, I'd like to tackle a different problem.

I want to say that anyone who knows my abilities and achievements as a pupil of a music middle school (including the professors there, cross my heart and hope to die) can tell you that I mastered all the basics and rules that were taught there quicker than it had been planned in the schedule of the learning programme, even though I can seem slow in execution of some exercises due to frequently triple-double-checking everything in my search for the absolute best solutions, no matter what (it can get a bit obsessive at times, but I don't think that's the main point, given that I confess often being a greater perfectionist than I should be). Naturally, I have always felt the need to go beyond my own knowledge (and that applies to the situation in discussion here), but since no one ever stopped by to help me with that, most of the time I just felt awful being practically forced to suffocate on my hunger for inspiration and creativity, because I was limited to learning as so much as EVERYONE ELSE had yet to learn well. No one ever put an effort to teach advanced material to advanced learners! And their excuse was always that I'd have a chance to learn it all as a student of a faculty, yet here string players are being denied of any real kind of composing, conducting, or orchestrating practices by the programme, all their learning careers; and in faculty this extends to HARMONY and COUNTERPOINT of all!

There is a slight fortunate exception in that the formal and harmonic analysis is separated from these disciplines, but it's all still already miserable for anyone here who really wants to improve, and even more so for those who are aiming for the world-class level of musical competence. And before you ask, no, you can't study composition in Niš, and it would've been too much at once for someone as inexperienced and as used to somewhat unambitious standards as myself.

Intuition is good for coming up with small ideas/drafts which can be expanded or incorporated into works. The worst thing anyone can do however, is say "I'm going to write a Symphony", then pull up a Sibelius orchestral template and start writing without any planning.

Intuition can be embraced when large scale goals are laid out (when filling in the surface material). Approaching music going from the larger, broader goals of a composition, to the smaller surface aspects allows for a great deal of flexibility.

So essentially: set about composing systematically (at least to some extent). For example (going from the largest scale in the process to the small): "I want to write a Sonata in the key of C. The first movement is going to be in the Sonata Allegro form. The exposition will be in C/G. This is my antecedent phrase. This is my consequence phrase. Idea X will be highlighted in the subsequent period. etc."

The only problem I can see here is that the choice of a type of work entirely also requires inspiration, and so do real quality formal solutions, but I feel your advice will come to be most helpful to me nevertheless! Thank you very much!

Thread necromancy is from the devil. Shun ... shun ... shun!

Shouldn't threads 5 years old be locked?

Well I will provide thoughts that will close this thread:

1) Intuition is fantastic tool to get you writing

2) But after awhile you realize your ability to write complete contained pieces (that is, there is a sense of begining middle and end even if you mess around with the expectations of these ideas) based SOLELY on intuition produces very hit and miss results.

3) Therefore, a systemic study of prior music is necessary - as both instrumentalist and composer

4) Eventually you can rely on your intuition again as the rigor instilled in your has become subconscious and integrated so that it is part of your "intution". In a way Dominus is correct, in the early reliance on intuition without much training the TENDENCY is produce copies of prior music. Even those composer outside the traditional training methodologies had undergone rigorous study of some sort (Billings was an excellent choral leader and had a good exposure to hymnody, Ives was a highly trained organist whose father was a bandmaster, Martin came from a musical family and had done much intense study of Bach and other composers).

As it has been written here many times composition eventually becomes this balancing of raw intuition fed by rigorous study.

Thread necromancy is from the devil. Shun ... shun ... shun!

Shouldn't threads 5 years old be locked?

Actually, I was thinking the same.

...

... until I read the posts and discovered that there is serious discussion material here. It's only necroposting when someone revives a thread by adding about nothing.

Apparently, this is not the case. In fact, some people need a lot of words to express themselves. So much even, that the famous "TLDR" abbreviation applies.

Actually this thread has been very instructive despite its 'zombie' nature :horrified: . Training alone without intuition can make for a good musician, and intuition without rigorous training can make for a creative one. But you need both to be a true composer.

It seems a newbie is the culprit.

It could be he figured better recycle an old thread with a similar theme than start a new one?

Or alternatively he just saw the thread interesting and didn't even look at its date...

It seems a newbie is the culprit.

It could be he figured better recycle an old thread with a similar theme than start a new one?

Or alternatively he just saw the thread interesting and didn't even look at its date...

Actually, it's both. I was looking for a thread about solving any kinds of composers' psychological problems, found this one, and decided to post in it rather than start a nigh-identical discussion in a separate thread (after all, forum admins speaking in the name of forums usually tell you to try to find the answers you need in existing threads, precisely so you don't go unknowingly posting duplicates and so the original threads stay useful!), all the while not noticing any displayed dates at all, not by a long shot! :D

I never understood YC's aversion to reviving old threads.

I think thread should remain open, since there's some OK discussion going on which isn't ancient and the original poster doesn't need to reply necessarily.

On that note, everyone has to find their composition work ethic on their own. There's no "worst thing you can possibly do" or "best thing to do," it varies so wildly for everyone that it's a bad idea to even give advice like that.

Now I get to make fun of some stuff that was posted (Yay!)

...Intuition is the worst tool for composing. Intuition will only produce something you've already heard...

Yeah man, it's obviously clear that you should never produce stuff that sounds like anything you've already heard. Invent new instruments for every piece, invent new tuning and scales every single time! Invent new forms, new playing techniques, everything so long as you're not producing something you've already heard. Hell don't listen to your own music, since you will taint yourself (or if you haven't heard what you wrote, that means you can keep writing like that since you are, after all, not producing something you've "already heard?")

Intuition is one of greatest and most powerful weapons an artist has, it is what makes them, them. The "something doesn't feel right" or "this has a good groove to it, don't know why exactly" are sometimes the best analytical statements in the world, specially if you start listening to them and develop that sense to know what kind of things you gravitate towards.

The worst thing anyone can do however, is say "I'm going to write a Symphony", then pull up a Sibelius orchestral template and start writing without any planning.

Yeah, learning by doing is one of the worst things anyone can indeed do. I mean, the outcome must necessarily suck because they went in without no planning, right? That's how this works, right?

Obviously, this is ridiculous. You can "improvise" a draft of a symphony on a piano, or on the computer with the entire score, you can write it all out of nowhere and later edit. I don't like the idea of "theory composing," which is "if you write a piece THIS way, it'll suck!" that's absolute garbage. There's no way anyone can possibly know the outcome of such a thing.

The fact this is the worst thing -ANYONE- can do also annoys me. ANYONE also would include people like the warhorses (if they had sibelius!) and every composer who has decades of experience in maybe doing just what you described. You can't judge the finished product by the work ethic, hence this argument is as ridiculous as saying composing mondays only produces trash.

Now, you can suggest it may not be practical to compose directly for orchestra if the person doesn't have the experience doing it before, since orchestration is not the same as composition and thinking about both things at once is a lot of work not everyone is prepared for from the get-go.

Does this mean it's wrong or the worst thing they can do? No, it does not.

Does it mean it will result in crap music? No, not at all.

Stop "theory composing," seriously, it makes everyone look retarded.

Intuition is one of greatest and most powerful weapons an artist has, it is what makes them, them. The "something doesn't feel right" or "this has a good groove to it, don't know why exactly" are sometimes the best analytical statements in the world, specially if you start listening to them and develop that sense to know what kind of things you gravitate towards.

Intuition is indeed a powerful tool in the creative artist's armoury. As your examples show, it is honed based on prior experience. The reason why we can judge that a groove sounds good or that something is not quite balanced in a composition is precisely because we have a mental 'library' of other examples to compare it too. This is not limited to a particular element or genre, as more general principles such as proportions and coherence come from life experience. I don't agree with what Dominus says about it stifling originality; the opposite approach, consciously trying to be different from anybody else, will produce a very limited range of available ways to proceed at any point in the composition.

Yeah, learning by doing is one of the worst things anyone can indeed do. I mean, the outcome must necessarily suck because they went in without no planning, right? That's how this works, right?

'Learning by doing' is different from simply diving into something. The best 'learning by doing' is under the instruction of a good teacher, who will structure the 'doing' so it is of most benefit to your progress. Can you imagine if we took an 'intuitive' approach to learning to drive? - which I know might not seem as 'creative' a field as composition but actually requires a similar skill set; technical ability, judgement based on experience, handling multiple parts of the task simultaneously, memory, etc. The reason why pulling up an orchestral template and trying to write a symphony straight off is the wrong approach is simply that it is inappropriate for a beginner's level of experience and will teach them little other than that this is too ambitious a task for their level. One does not give a beginner piano student a concerto to learn. In both cases it will most likely result in abandoning the project frustrated and demoralised. You can write a shorter piece that 'works' just by going at it, and you can certainly come up with ideas spontaneously, but to write a longer piece which sounds coherent and through it produces a memorable and profound effect on the listener requires at least a rough plan and some experience of handling multiple ideas and longer forms. I suppose in summary I should say that you can sit down and write a symphony with no experience, but history suggests it will not be of much merit to the listener or performer. What the great examples of this form exhibit is that they sound spontaneous and original as well as being dramatic and memorable, because they disguise the carefully-crafted structure underneath so well.

You appear to be conflating an over-reliance on theory with a sensible degree of planning. If you asked a skilled performer to improvise a piece, what they came up with might sound really spontaneous and novel but underneath there would be at least some overall plan and definitely a solid grasp of technique on their instrument. The old adage of 'fail to plan, plan to fail' is a pertinent one. What is important to avoid is planning too much and so hampering flexibility in the process of composing a work.

TL;DR version: This entire reply is summed up in: Your work ethic is not my work ethic or anybody elses' work ethic. Don't pretend it is or should be.

'Learning by doing' is different from simply diving into something. The best 'learning by doing' is under the instruction of a good teacher, who will structure the 'doing' so it is of most benefit to your progress. Can you imagine if we took an 'intuitive' approach to learning to drive? - which I know might not seem as 'creative' a field as composition but actually requires a similar skill set; technical ability, judgement based on experience, handling multiple parts of the task simultaneously, memory, etc.

No, it's not. Learning by doing implies that you are learning, while you're doing it. "Diving" into something is doing that something, and you will learn from that experience. What you're really trying to say is that in your opinion there are better ways to learn than this. I get that, I never said otherwise but keep in mind this cannot apply to everyone and every circumstance.

Driving has nothing to do with creating music, as an error can leave you in a wheel chair or kill you, or others. In art there are no errors, none of your actions will endanger people's lives or wellbeing. Just as well, the operation of a vehicle for transport has clearly defined and stated goals, even if you're just driving for fun, something which art doesn't necessarily have. This comparison makes no sense, really.

The reason why pulling up an orchestral template and trying to write a symphony straight off is the wrong approach is simply that it is inappropriate for a beginner's level of experience and will teach them little other than that this is too ambitious a task for their level.

And sometimes that's the most important lesson of all, isn't it? And what better way to teach it?

I suppose in summary I should say that you can sit down and write a symphony with no experience, but history suggests it will not be of much merit to the listener or performer. What the great examples of this form exhibit is that they sound spontaneous and original as well as being dramatic and memorable, because they disguise the carefully-crafted structure underneath so well.

History suggests none of this nonsense. What it actually suggests is that everybody who wrote one had very different working ethics, none of which will work the same way for anybody else. As for it having or not having any merit, that's another thing I'm not even going to bother addressing since the usual aesthetic argument garbage is beyond the scope of my reply here (or my patience.)

But how about this:

If I showed you a piece (or symphony, or whatever) that you considered to have "much merit to the listener or performer" and I told you the guy who wrote it just dived in and wrote it, with no previous experience, would you believe me or would you tell me it's impossible? This clearly doesn't apply to the warhorses since we know the ways in which they wrote (sort of.)

You appear to be conflating an over-reliance on theory with a sensible degree of planning. If you asked a skilled performer to improvise a piece, what they came up with might sound really spontaneous and novel but underneath there would be at least some overall plan and definitely a solid grasp of technique on their instrument.

Anyone familiar with improvisation knows just how much of it is just winging it, since things ALWAYS go off plan, no matter what your plan was. Same could be said for writing a piece, no matter how great your plan was sometimes you just come up with better ideas as you're writing and have to make changes to that plan of yours. Sometimes you much rather ditch any plan what so ever and just spontanously come up with things. I don't think any of it is wrong.

Yeah theory is dumb.

Don't recall ever saying theory was dumb, but w/e.

EDIT: he changed his post, lol.

Look at how often younger composers get stuck on music they're writing and why they are getting stuck. Without fail, it will almost always be "I don't know what to do from here on". It's like driving: before leaving, you can plan to go to the grocery store, then to a friends home, eventually making your way back. You then set out and get where you need to go. Profit. What streets you take to get there, may be decided while on the road, but all the same: broad goals have already been set and you have destinations. Maybe while on your way, you spontaneously decide to get some coffee? Why not?

Compare this to just hopping in your car and aimlessly driving around, looking for something to do. We've all done this before. It's no fun and a waste of gas.

What's up with all the car analogies?

I think it happens to all composers, ever, that they'll find themselves in a situation they don't know what to do. It happened to Mozart, it happens to me and you, and everyone else regardless of age or experience. The creative process is organic, it's not something you have to "plan and have goals." You can, of course, it may help you if you do it, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the solution to all problems or the "best thing to do" in any given situation you have a writer's block on.

Your work ethic is not my work ethic is not his work ethic, again.

Yes...theory is dumb...I'm sure Beethoven or Brahms never thought of what voice to double huh? God....

I never forced common sense upon anyone: just suggested it. :)

Let's see what you posted again:

So essentially: set about composing systematically (at least to some extent). For example (going from the largest scale in the process to the small): "I want to write a Sonata in the key of C. The first movement is going to be in the Sonata Allegro form. The exposition will be in C/G. This is my antecedent phrase. This is my consequence phrase. Idea X will be highlighted in the subsequent period. ect."

This is your work ethic and you're telling people to use it. I get it's a suggestion for the OP's problem, and I don't think it's necessarily a bad one either. My problem is only in the persistence it's the best solution possible:

Compare this to just hopping in your car and aimlessly driving around, looking for something to do. We've all done this before. It's no fun and a waste of gas.

What if you actually enjoy driving for the sake of driving? Or, you learn you enjoy driving for the sake of driving while driving looking for something to do? Or what if you actually find that something to do? Let's see if we can have more car analogies.

This is just my suggestion for people who get stuck or are 'terrified' ( :P) of composing.

Fair enough.

I should clarify: "theory composing" is the idea that if you write a piece an X way, the piece will invariably be specific subjective quality (Good, bad, trash, great, memorable, whatever.) All this without actually having written anything at all to begin with. I came up with the term right here since I'm sick of hearing how if you do X or Y the piece outcome will be negatively/positively affected, when there's really no way to know or even judge this at all since we're talking about a nebulous "theoretical" piece, written by a "theoretical" composer both which do not actually exist.

It's like saying eating a tasty breakfast will make your car go faster, and just as nonsensical to boot.

Car analogies.