Terrified of Composing!

Oh yeah, I mean of course: structural planning isn't going to make a piece great in itself and I'd hope that no one would view it as simply drawing some dots and then connecting the but rather, but building a frame for a piece (which at that point isn't objectively good or bad).

Yeah, that's reasonable. It's just that I hear a lot of the "You shouldn't/should do this/that and thus become great/avoid failure" talk specially geared in how to teach things and that's annoying since I've been teaching a while now and things are way more flexible than that. Also what constitutes planning is also very personal to each person (what they value as more important when writing something, etc.) Plus the order in which they do things or how they do them don't need to make much sense to anyone on the outside since the final product is what's interesting.

I don't tell my composition students they should write 2 hour long symphonies as their first composition exercise, but I don't tell them they shouldn't either. The difference is mostly that if they engage in something large like that, they should go in with realistic expectations as to what will happen (lots of things they need to learn and think about simultaneously,) but if they still aren't discouraged by how much work this is, then why the hell not. That's the entire point really, even if they abandon it halfway, it'll be something they can look back on and reflect on what they did and that's invaluable.

And sometimes failing hardcore is actually a great thing in retrospective when you can look back at it once you've had more experience and spot your errors. Since this applies to all compositions big and small, I don't see why writing one particular type of music should be made "special." You can say the exact same thing with any kind of music (Don't just dive in and try to write a solo flute piece, a piano trio, or string quartet, piano solo, wind ensemble, whatever) but the truth is some people like doing just that, specially if they're experimenting and trying things out.

I think writing anything at all should be encouraged in all circumstances, as opposed to a pianist tackling pieces that are too hard, there's no "bad habits" or mechanical problems that may result from it that will haunt them later on. The worst that can happen is they'll abandon the piece and move to something else, it's negligible and what they gain from just plain writing things is really worth it, no matter what they're writing.

Can I just be clear that your position is that structure or forward planning is not necessary to produce great music, and that it and 'theory' hampers creativity. Is that correct? If so, I am curious as to what, besides not wanting to lose this argument, is your interest in propagating this view. Are you afraid of being thought elitist or a snob for advocating some degree of specialist knowledge as being necessary to classical/'art' music composition? Do you ever plan out compositions, or just write spontaneously and so fear your music will be discredited?

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.

a) Driving has nothing to do with creating music, eh? Well I can tell you I wouldn't have written The Sun Rising without having spent hours on the motorway as this was my inspiration. (By the way, the fact that driving poses potential danger does not result in the conclusion that it has nothing to do with music - this is known as a non sequitur argument) Also, I couldn't earn most of my living from writing or playing music without the car.

b) There were plenty of 'errors' in composition under the Council of Trent, the Inquisition, Stalin and Chairman Mao that would likely result in your death or that of others. Not quite the same as losing the back end and putting your Astra into a tree, admittedly, but you did say that music never endangered life...

c) You've missed the analogy, which is about learning methods. Never mind that I've already explained that the skills sets required for both driving and composition are similar, the point is that one must follow a certain learning structure if the aim is to be successful. Should've used ballet as the example, I suppose - you can't pirouette successfully just by jumping in.

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.)

The last caveat seems to make this question: 'Would you believe that a great piece could be written spontaneously, not including all the great pieces we know that weren't?'. The 'warhorses', by which I assume you mean the Beethoven/Brahms/Sibelius tradition, were written by the composers thinking about overall structure and fitting their spontaneously created surface ideas around it. We know this because we have their sketchbooks and other writings which show how they thought about putting the piece together and that they made plans. As these works are generally considered by listeners, critics and musicologists alike to be examples of music with merit, we can therefore conclude that merit is more likely to be found in pieces which are built around a structure in this way. So to answer the question; I would not believe you, because if such works could be written spontaneously, why was planning and theory as I have described necessary to produce all the finest extant examples of it? If Beethoven needed to structure and refine his ideas to produce the quality of works that he did, how could somebody with no experience do the same or better? I am also reluctant to believe that somebody with 'no previous experience' would even be able to manage the practicalities of writing such as different clefs and transpositions.

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 (sic) come up with things. I don't think any of it is wrong.

I am very familiar with improvisation, as I'm a church organist and accompanist who quite often has to work from lead sheets, chord charts and other 'guideline' scores. And yes, I do change my mind in the process of composing, many times, often with almost the entire piece. Elgar would copy out bits of his pieces, place them around the room and get Billy Reed to play them in different orders to determine how they should make up the piece. But, as you imply, there is still a plan. Even if you end up ditching a plan then we can still say you have a plan of what not to write.

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.

Oh, you're quite right about this, but having a decent outline structure is a very good bet on how to overcome this. If you get stuck at one point but you have planned out what will eventually follow it (and importantly, this already-devised passage is one you know will reinforce the effectiveness of the piece by its structural position), you can proceed simply by thinking about how to link the two. So as you can once again see from this example, the successful composition combines a degree of structured planning with a degree of freedom. This reflects my own composition experiences and, I suspect, yours too.

EDIT: since writing this several other posts have appeared which make your position clearer. So you can probably ignore the first paragraph.

a) Driving has nothing to do with creating music, eh? Well I can tell you I wouldn't have written The Sun Rising without having spent hours on the motorway as this was my inspiration. (By the way, the fact that driving poses potential danger does not result in the conclusion that it has nothing to do with music - this is known as a non sequitur argument) Also, I couldn't earn most of my living from writing or playing music without the car.

Um, good for you, yet this does jack scraggy to link both things together even conceptually. I was eating pancakes when I wrote something, but not because of that I'll say pancakes are related to music, that's stupid. They can be, you can MAKE anything related to anything else if you want, but in practice they're entirely different things and work in different ways.

b) There were plenty of 'errors' in composition under the Council of Trent, the Inquisition, Stalin and Chairman Mao that would likely result in your death or that of others. Not quite the same as losing the back end and putting your Astra into a tree, admittedly, but you did say that music never endangered life...

Yes you can also shoot somebody for writing in C major and tell them "You made the error of writing in C major while I was holding this gun!", it doesn't help your analogy at all. Not one bit. You were talking about non sequitur before, right? Why keep showing me examples of it yourself, I get it already.

c) You've missed the analogy, which is about learning methods. Never mind that I've already explained that the skills sets required for both driving and composition are similar, the point is that one must follow a certain learning structure if the aim is to be successful. Should've used ballet as the example, I suppose - you can't pirouette successfully just by jumping in.

Yeah sure, learning to apply the right brake pressure with your foot is exactly he same as balancing orchestral instruments, or learning how to take curves in the snow on the highway is the same as learning how to write glissando for the trombone, as well as learning to navigate streets and traffic is the same as learning what the ranges are on an alto flute. Totally the same skills. Your analogy still sucked, really.

As these works are generally considered by listeners, critics and musicologists alike to be examples of music with merit, we can therefore conclude that merit is more likely to be found in pieces which are built around a structure in this way.

Appeal to popularity/authority much? I knew you'd fall for it, hence why the trick question. Thanks, that made this reply actually much shorter.

So to answer the question; I would not believe you, because if such works could be written spontaneously, why was planning and theory as I have described necessary to produce all the finest extant examples of it?

So it's impossible that there are people who can do it? Good to know, I guess losing my crystal ball of infinite wisdom was a bad move but you at least got yours! And also, you'll always move the goalpost by claiming that "it's not the finest example!" So, really this is a waste of time and it was a trick question (protip: you failed.)

And lastly I'll fix this statement for you:

IN MY OPINION, WHAT I CONSIDER A GOOD WORK ETHIC combines a degree of structured planning with a degree of freedom.

There! Much better! :>

Um, good for you, yet this does jack scraggy to link both things together even conceptually. I was eating pancakes when I wrote something, but not because of that I'll say pancakes are related to music, that's stupid.

You stated 'driving has nothing to do with creating music'. I've given you an example of how it has.

They can be, you can MAKE anything related to anything else if you want, but in practice they're entirely different things and work in different ways.

If 'you can MAKE (i.e. argue) anything related to anything else if you want', then you can 'link both things together even conceptually'!.

Yes you can also shoot somebody for writing in C major and tell them "You made the error of writing in C major while I was holding this gun!", it doesn't help your analogy at all.

What you are saying here is a false analogy, because in your example 'writing in C major' and 'being shot by you because you had a gun' are not connected; it would be an arbitrary decision of you to shoot for this reason. In the Soviet Union the choice of key was quite literally a matter of life and death, and things such as having to end symphonies in an upbeat major key were part of Soviet cultural policy. Although this policy might have been established arbitrarily, once this had happened it was law, and as such being sent to a labour camp on trumped-up charges for cultural crimes was not something that would be decided just like that (please don't confuse this with the fact that people would be arrested without warning). It really was a crime to write the wrong notes.

In any case I did not state this to strengthen my analogy; I made this point to directly refute your assertion that 'In art there are no errors, none of your actions will endanger people's lives or wellbeing'.

Yeah sure, learning to apply the right brake pressure with your foot is exactly he same as balancing orchestral instruments, or learning how to take curves in the snow on the highway is the same as learning how to write glissando for the trombone, as well as learning to navigate streets and traffic is the same as learning what the ranges are on an alto flute. Totally the same skills

To quote Sergei Rachmaninov: 'A good conductor ought to be a good chauffeur. The qualities that make the one also make the other. They are concentration, an incessant control of attention, and presence of mind - the conductor has to only add a little sense of music'. I think we agree that this could be said of a good composer too, as they all relate to knowledge of one's discipline and the ability to make intelligent decisions based on it. As I've repeatedly said, they require the same structured learning processes to acquire, as do countless other skills from archery to zoology. Can you understand that it is not the end skill I am implying that is important but the way in which it is learned?

Appeal to popularity/authority much? I knew you'd fall for it, hence why the trick question. Thanks, that made this reply actually much shorter.

This is not an appeal to popularity. Please see this page for a correct definition. The fact that major symphonies in the canon, which I made clear I was discussing, are considered to be of good quality by the vast majority of concert goers, critics and musicologists is beyond reasonable doubt and is not in debate. Can you cite any evidence that they are not popular and widely acclaimed amongst the parties mentioned?

So it's impossible that there are people who can do it? Good to know, I guess losing my crystal ball of infinite wisdom was a bad move but you at least got yours! And also, you'll always move the goalpost by claiming that "it's not the finest example!" So, really this is a waste of time and it was a trick question (protip: you failed.)

I don't quite understand this. I have shown by logic that it is highly unlikely (and I did not use the work impossible, please do not use this kind of leading language, what I actually said was that I would not believe you) that a work of the quality of, say, Beethoven, could be produced by somebody with no experience, when it was still necessary for somebody highly experienced (Ludwig van B) to go through the process of planning and drafting and refining, which I proved he did by citing his sketchbooks and correspondences, all of which can be viewed and verified via facsimiles in public libraries. To assert that I would 'always move the goalpost' is extremely presumptuous and is not an fair debate tactic. In any case, what were you trying to trick me into saying?

I would hope that the caveat that any statements we make are opinions would be taken as read. Where I am trying to establish a material fact, I back it up with evidence.

I'd just like to state why this is relevant to the thread. It's because a learning composer needs to understand the importance of balancing theory and process with individuality and freedom. I know it's a cliché, but they really need to learn the rules before they break them.

In any case, what were you trying to trick me into saying?

All that you've already said, lol. Thanks for the laugh. I do hope you actually read that article you quoted on logic fallacies. Read it rather carefully, then we can talk some more once you see what you're saying.

Let me ask you a question: what evidence would I have to provide to prove your arguments wrong?

Let me ask you a question: what evidence would I have to provide to prove your arguments wrong?

I don't know, you could start with actually reading what I write correctly:

What you are saying here is a false analogy, because in your example 'writing in C major' and 'being shot by you because you had a gun'

I never said because, I said while. Very very different things here. The point was, anyone can create a situation where composition can lead to death, this doesn't make the example you gave any better about Mao or oppressive totalitarian regimes. Seriously, I was just saying the exact same thing you said back at you. However, barring artificially increasing the deadliness of composing, it's harmless compared to the potential danger inherent to driving or failing to drive properly. How hard is this to understand? Likewise, unless you artificially create conditions for something to be an "error" in music composition, this has to be manufactured entirely since there's nothing inherent to composing which can be an "error." And what someone considers an "error," another may praise as greatness or originality, or whatever.

Another thing, don't tell me "X amount of people think Y, therefore Y must be the case." I don't give two poo poos if the entire population of planet earth decides that composer Z is the best composer ever, this won't make me like him any better or think his music has any more or less merit that something else. Yet, this is EXACTLY what you're doing:

As these works are generally considered by listeners, critics and musicologists alike to be examples of music with merit, we can therefore conclude that merit is more likely to be found in pieces which are built around a structure in this way.

This assumes that listeners, critics and musicologists' opinions matter to me at all when it comes to how I or anyone else values merit in music. This is wrong. It doesn't, it can't. Who are they, after all, to dictate what has or hasn't any merit to me? This is circular reasoning as the only exchange possible is as follows:

"Why should I care about their opinion?"

"Because they're many people and you are only one!"

(Appeal to popularity!)

"Why should I care about their opinion?"

"Because they're authorities on the subject of music and you are not!"

(Appeal to authority!)

You did both at once, hence the fallacies I listed.

Besides random oversights like:

I am also reluctant to believe that somebody with 'no previous experience' would even be able to manage the practicalities of writing such as different clefs and transpositions.

Which assumes the person, once they start writing, will blind themselves to any and all information that would be useful to research while they're writing on what they're writing. This is irrational at best, if the person is aware they aren't sure what they're doing they will most likely attempt to research, if crudely, what they're doing while they do it (if possible, but since this is composing, it's totally plausible.)

Come on, seriously? You have only convinced me of just how deeply entrenched your biases are, nothing more, nothing less.

You haven't answered my question. I would like to know what evidence I would have to provide to prove that your hypothesis was partially or completely incorrect. Just to be clear, I am only asking you to suggest what evidence would be needed; you don't have to actually provide it or show that it exists. This is how we test the strength of a hypothesis in an academic manner, by playing devil's advocate for a moment and comparing any possible weaknesses with the available evidence. It could turn out that they do not correspond and you find the evidence does, in fact, back up your arguments.

In order to prove that my arguments were incorrect, you would need to provide reasonable evidence of a composer who had acquired, purely by intuition, compositional skills that were the equivalent of somebody who it could be proved had studied under others and had taken whatever you define as a 'theoretical approach'. You would need to show that the latter approach hampers the creativity of a student composer. You would need to show that the business of acquiring skill for a practical discipline such as driving uses a different learning processes to composition, and that the entirely 'intuitive approach' is as effective a learning method for any given discipline as any other, for example using theory or structured lessons. Can you do this?

You are also very keen to discredit the validity of the idea that we can measure the quality of an artistic work. This is because if you cannot, then my argument about even someone like Beethoven needing to plan and structure to produce his music will hold and thus discredit your advocacy of the 'intuitive approach'. Because terms such as 'merit' and 'skill' are open to interpretation, when faced with an argument along these lines either of us could just claim that we don't accept the individual in question's abilities and therefore the example is void. So that's why we have to look at how the general public and musical academics have received the work/composer, as this is at least a moderately reliable way of assessing this. It seems sensible to conclude that if a work has a long and frequent performance history and the majority of the listening public and suitably qualified academics regard it to have 'merit', then we could place some authority on this position. It's not absolute proof but it would seem an honest and sensible way of backing up an argument regarding value judgements. However, because this contradicts what you say, you try to claim that the opinions of qualified academics and the public reception of a work are of no help in determining its quality or merit. Are you seriously arguing that Beethoven's symphonies, concerti, quartets, trios, sonatas and masses are not in fact of good quality? In order to prove this you would need to provide evidence that thousands of academics and listeners who would have the opinion his works are of good quality are either deluded, or have been duped into regarding the music in a certain way, or else use some objective criteria to determine the quality of a work to prove that the music is not in fact of good quality.

Since you offer patronising 'protips', please accept one in return from a professional musician: If we state that somebody in authority takes a certain position on a subject, that alone is not an appeal to authority. When an academic paper is written (including those by students), it is expected and encouraged that the author will include quotes and citations of works by such figures as evidence. It is perfectly sound reasoning to say that 'academic x says this therefore it must be true' (more probably we would say 'is likely to be true' or 'is a reasonable conclusion'), because academic x will have studied the subject, will base their conclusions on verifiable evidence, and so their authority rests on these and not simply their own stature. Academics do not try and parade unprovable opinions as facts because they would be discredited by their peers - the academic environment is pretty cut-throat, let me assure you. A suitably qualified academic who stated in a court of law that Beethoven was generally regarded as a great composer would have this accepted by the court as reliable evidence. Their value judgements can generally be trusted and this is why I am confident in resting a pillar of my argument on this. A true appeal to authority would be trying to cite Barack Obama as a reliable source on whether a music work has merit. He has authority, but it is not an authority that allows him to make a knowledgeable statement on this subject area.

I feel you are overlooking the fact I agree with a large part of what you are saying, mostly because you nit-pick peripheral points relating to analogies I use. I certainly am not arguing that intuition is of no use in compositional training or in mature composition, nor that structure and logic-driven planning can solve any problem. I am not suggesting that driving is perfectly analogous to composition, only that the methods by which the skill is learned and honed are similar enough to warrant comparison. I've also been honourable enough not to misquote, swear, taunt and make personal attacks against my opponent, nor relish the chance to 'get to make fun of some stuff that was posted (Yay!)' none of which should be necessary in a serious debate.

You haven't answered my question. I would like to know what evidence I would have to provide to prove that your hypothesis was partially or completely incorrect. Just to be clear, I am only asking you to suggest what evidence would be needed; you don't have to actually provide it or show that it exists. This is how we test the strength of a hypothesis in an academic manner, by playing devil's advocate for a moment and comparing any possible weaknesses with the available evidence. It could turn out that they do not correspond and you find the evidence does, in fact, back up your arguments.

Well tell me exactly what you think my hypothesis is, just so we don't have any misunderstandings. But we're off to the wrong start with the following:

In order to prove that my arguments were incorrect, you would need to provide reasonable evidence of a composer who had acquired, purely by intuition, compositional skills that were the equivalent of somebody who it could be proved had studied under others and had taken whatever you define as a 'theoretical approach'.

Er, there are millions autodidact composers out there. Heaps, loads. But this again all comes down to what you consider "equivalent skills," which we will invariably disagree on, so this isn't a point at all. I also never talked about any kind of "theoretical approach," I talked about "theory composing." I explained what this is in a previous post, not doing it again.

You would need to show that the latter approach hampers the creativity of a student composer.

Never said it would.

You would need to show that the business of acquiring skill for a practical discipline such as driving uses a different learning processes to composition, and that the entirely 'intuitive approach' is as effective a learning method for any given discipline as any other, for example using theory or structured lessons. Can you do this?

No, I never claimed any such thing, nor will I try to support such a fallacious argument I, again, did not make. That you can teach art different than you can teach driving should be such an obvious statement I don't feel the need to defend it.

Are you seriously arguing that Beethoven's symphonies, concerti, quartets, trios, sonatas and masses are not in fact of good quality? In order to prove this you would need to provide evidence that thousands of academics and listeners who would have the opinion his works are of good quality are either deluded, or have been duped into regarding the music in a certain way, or else use some objective criteria to determine the quality of a work to prove that the music is not in fact of good quality.

I don't ascribe such quality to music, I can simply say it is or isn't to my liking. To a punk rocker, it could be of terrible quality, why is his opinion less important than mine? I don't stand on some magical pedestal nor am I willing to give myself such importance that I can decide what is or isn't "good quality" in any music whatsoever.

See the argument below for how your method of "proving" such thing is so inherently flawed as to be hilarious.

So that's why we have to look at how the general public and musical academics have received the work/composer, as this is at least a moderately reliable way of assessing this. It seems sensible to conclude that if a work has a long and frequent performance history and the majority of the listening public and suitably qualified academics regard it to have 'merit', then we could place some authority on this position. It's not absolute proof but it would seem an honest and sensible way of backing up an argument regarding value judgements.

No as the outcome depends on your sample group. Ask a group of tween girls what their favorite music is and I'm certain you'll get different results. By asking a group to which you already know the tastes of, you're already manipulating the results of your own poll by selecting a sample group that provides the results you need. This is very dishonest. If you are intending to tell me to even consider such an approach (it won't, for a different reason,) I expect a sample group made of people who have no idea who these composers are as well as people who study them for a living. You are making a huge mistake thinking that it's possible to generalize so absolutely and think this means anything at all in terms of evidence or strength of argument. Your fallacies therefore still apply, sorry.

The reason this is all for naught is that not everyone is interested in valuing "merit" in anything. To me, again, it doesn't matter if a billion people's tastes favor X composer, ergo, I don't care in the slightest how popular X composer is. This doesn't change my stance on his music as my taste is my taste, and as an individual I can have my own reasons for liking or disliking this person. This applies to everyone, and thus stands the fallacy.

Their value judgements can generally be trusted and this is why I am confident in resting a pillar of my argument on this. A true appeal to authority would be trying to cite Barack Obama as a reliable source on whether a music work has merit. He has authority, but it is not an authority that allows him to make a knowledgeable statement on this subject area.

Nobody is enough of an authority to tell me what to feel when listening to a piece. If I think composer Z is scraggy, too bad for all the "evidence" you can bring up that he isn't, it just failed 100% to convince me as my personal opinion, to me, matters more than the opinions of others on something so subjective. Don't treat art discourse as anything related to scientific discourse, they are not related.

I feel you are overlooking the fact I agree with a large part of what you are saying, mostly because you nit-pick peripheral points relating to analogies I use. I certainly am not arguing that intuition is of no use in compositional training or in mature composition, nor that structure and logic-driven planning can solve any problem. I am not suggesting that driving is perfectly analogous to composition, only that the methods by which the skill is learned and honed are similar enough to warrant comparison. I've also been honourable enough not to misquote, swear, taunt and make personal attacks against my opponent, nor relish the chance to 'get to make fun of some stuff that was posted (Yay!)' none of which should be necessary in a serious debate.

Okay, but think: this was never a serious debate. You haven't managed to come up with a proper argument until now for me to think this is serious.

Well tell me exactly what you think my hypothesis is, just so we don't have any misunderstandings. But we're off to the wrong start with the following:

I asked you this back in post number 38, right at the start, however so far you've been too busy to respond.

From post #38

EDIT: since writing this several other posts have appeared which make your position clearer. So you can probably ignore the first paragraph.

... So I did. Is that where you asked the question?

You've still misunderstood me on a vital point. I have never been trying to argue that 'Beethoven is better than...' or 'Beethoven has more merit than...', simply that he has some merit or quality in his music, and I define this merit via the fact that some people regard his music as intellectually stimulating and emotionally engaging enough to want to hear it of their own free will. So of course I am only confining this to a selected sample, even if this amount represents, in reality, a minority. I only want to prove that a number of people like his music, not that this is more than for another type of music or that these people are somehow superior in taste or some other factor. Of course one couldn't prove such subjective factors scientifically. Beethoven has merit simply because somebody wants to hear it, and they want to hear it because it appeals in some degree to their own, personal, subjective idea of what music should be like. This is all the more remarkable given that the audience he commands still exists today and it has come to his music freely - obviously you can't force someone to like something. I realise this also applies to practically all music - the tween girls like Justin Beiber because he appeals to their subjective ideas of what music should sound like and the act look like. Justin Beiber therefore also contains merit simply on the fact that his audience wants to engage with his output. This hinges on the notion that the purpose of music is to communicate something, which seems like a reasonable argument. We know Beethoven did intend this as his purpose because of what he wrote about his music.

All I'm saying is that the merit in Beethoven lies in the fact that an audience still wants to hear his music, and that as he used a certain compositional method I believe this constitutes the success of this method. It doesn't preclude that a different method might work too, but I advocate the freedom-on-top-of-a-firm-structure approach because in Beethoven and others I can see that it produces the definition of merit explained above. My argument is NOT the crude 'Lots of people like Beethoven, therefore Beethoven is definitely good' but rather 'Some people like Beethoven, and the fact that he produced something that made them think so is how we define the merit in his work.' I'm not measuring the degree of merit according to this definition, just trying to show that it is present.

The reason why I've been banging on about citing academics is that I seriously thought you were disputing the idea that amongst the classical music audience Beethoven was not in fact a popular composer, something I thought would be so empirically self-evident as to not require any proof. Ok, so I was mistaken in this interpretation of your position and probably didn't make this clear; I've been arguing against something I needn't have. Of course I'm not trying to argue that an academic or group of them or popular opinion can dictate personal taste, I never suggested this. I did argue that an academic or a member of the audience would be a reliable judge of how such an audience regards a work. I am using the fact that a significant number of people are receptive to Beethoven's work simply to conclude that his music is succeeding in engaging with an audience. The only value judgement within this would be how one would define 'popular amongst the classical music audience', because this is what I thought you were disputing. That's why I questioned whether you were arguing that Beethoven's works were not of good quality because, as you explain at length, this would be a moot point, it's unprovable.

You've still misunderstood me on a vital point. ... I only want to prove that a number of people like his music, not that this is more than for another type of music or that these people are somehow superior in taste or some other factor. ...That's why I questioned whether you were arguing that Beethoven's works were not of good quality because, as you explain at length, this would be a moot point, it's unprovable.

I really don't disagree with any of the statements in the last post, but I wonder why the hell you had to say so much weird stuff to get it.

Here's what you do. Write, and the rest will come on its own. There's nothing to be afraid of. Trust me, I know what you're talking about. I'm constantly afraid of my future as a composer, and I have this terrible terrible fear that one day I'll run out of music, and i'll have nothing to write. But I put all those aside, and just write.

P.S. Sometimes, fear can be good. Any emotion can be made into music, so if you have some sort of emotion that won't go away. Use it! why not?

My sincerest congratulations to treehugger1995 for giving exactly the kind of advice we need, a.k.a. an advice based on personal subjective opinion, instead of arguing that any opinion is more objective or valuable than another! :) After all, any debate on objectivity of essence, if built upon even slightly scientific grounds, requires a rational theme in order to produce rationally useful results, and I think we'll agree neither music or true values are rational. That means any conclusively rational explanations of the true nature and values of music - are impossible. :)

You know what? I've learned something here today --> SSC is a b!tch.

That is all. :-)

YEah lets giv a big rund of aplause!

Nothing more lucid than 'just write music' has been suggested in the course of this entire thread.

I've experienced this before, which is similar: I write an 8 bar melody and I get emotionally attached to that melody on its own, and am afraid to put the melody in the context of a full song because it the song might not do it justice. At such times, I just sit down on the keyboard and experiment with chords, use my DAW, or listen to one of my favorite composers and I usually come up with another piece of the puzzle. But I'm never in a mindset where I feel I have to write something, because I don't think you can will inspiration.