How long does it take you to compose a single piece?

I seem to have trouble with writing efficiently...last night it took me 1.5 hours to finish 2 MEASURES and revise 4!

And this is my normal pace.

Is this slow? I'm writing choral pieces, so I don't know if there's normally a difference in the rate at which a piece can be written (I'm assuming choral pieces take longer however), but I just want input from others. Thanks =)

I seem to have trouble with writing efficiently...last night it took me 1.5 hours to finish 2 MEASURES and revise 4!

And this is my normal pace.

Is this slow? I'm writing choral pieces, so I don't know if there's normally a difference in the rate at which a piece can be written (I'm assuming choral pieces take longer however), but I just want input from others. Thanks =)

I really depends...I write out melody (or main theme/themes as it usaually is) and bass as I hear it in my head on paper, then I fill the harmony in the between. Then I copy out the main theme (4, 8, or 16 measures depending) in the main key of the piece (I don't care what people say the key of a piece has everything to do with the emotion you experiance from it even in equal-temperment) and search for canons/canonic material, fugues (on the rare occasions that it works without me purposefully writing a fugue), and other interesting motifs that I can develop. Using the extracted motifs I write out various possibities (I don't use half the stuff I write) can it be developed into a new theme? Is it better suited to help modulate from key to key? And so I do that. Then I write it all out as I see fit, writing anything new that comes to me and works (especially interesting, bizzare, or expressive chords, harmonies and modulations). At that point the piece is basically done. And this takes about a week to two weeks depending on the free time I have, the main themes and its thier harmonies take about 1 1/2 - 2 hours at best. But I don't call the piece complete for months maybe even a year. I spend a lot of time tweaking everything until I think the music is as perfect as I want it and expresses my intention in the best way possible. So I write pretty quickly, but nothing gets done for a long time.

Average life-span of my writing process is about 5-7 months for a 10-minute chart.

Granted, I'm not working HARD, or even every day, but the whole process for me is quite lengthy.

I actually compose really fast but it can take me a lot of time to render it in my sequencer or even just notate it on paper. My non-existent attention span doesn't help either.

I actually compose really fast but it can take me a lot of time to render it in my sequencer or even just notate it on paper. My non-existent attention span doesn't help either.

Does The ADHD effect you as well?

I spend about 12 - 14 hours a day composing. For pieces that our large scale, it takes me about a month or two to completely finish the work itself (1 movement a week or so - if its a 4 movement work). For shorter pieces, it depends largely on the type of piece and instrumentation. Large chamber pieces generally take me about 2 - 3 months to finish. Shorter ones about a month or so. Again, that all depends on my mood.

I seem to have trouble with writing efficiently...last night it took me 1.5 hours to finish 2 MEASURES and revise 4!

And this is my normal pace.

Is this slow?

No.

Sure, there are composers who seem to compose an opera every week (yes, Philip), but most composers I know aren't any faster at all. Like Robin, it always takes me several months to write any piece, the first few weeks to months consisting of nothing but concepts, plans, sketches. In the final phase of finishing a composition it usually gets a lot faster, but the first few bars generally take me forever to write.

Just consider: If you'd compose 40 hours a week at your rate, i.e. as a full-time job, you'd still write 60 measures per week, which wouldn't be bad at all! (I'd personally envy you a lot for that kind of speed.)

And I generally prefer two carefully composed measures over one huge symphony that some guy spat out carelessly in a day by far. There's already so much music out there. I don't find it necessary to add tons more to that, just for the sake of writing a lot.

Very rarely I rush a piece out in a day for a very imminent deadline. More often, I have to rush a piece out in a few days or a week (see my 'Five Go Adventuring Again' and 'Dialogue'....actually I haven't posted them. Will do that soon.)

Mostly it takes a matter of weeks and months to finish a serious piece, with the required attention to detail. It depends, to an extent, on the size of the ensemble too. A fully orchestrated work will take much longer than an oboe solo.

The length of time it takes me to write a piece usually depends on a few things. For example: The piano sonatas and impromptus in classical style I wrote on average took me from two days - two weeks of solid writing daily. The lone symphony I wrote took me just under a year to complete. Commercial hip-hop, rap, R&B, pop -- music that is made for individual artists to sing or flow to take about 2 - 4 days to complete to satisfaction.

Generally, though, the main factors for length of time needed to write a full piece:

a) What style or genre I'm writing in? (contemporary 'hip-hop, r&b, pop, modern classical, electronic, orchestral')

b) What material/motifs that I've come up with by either improvisation on the keyboard or melodies that have come up in my mind:

- Are the musical colors/melodies/chords something that I'm really passionate or drawn to?

- How much further variation or expanding of themes are possible?

- What established form (orchestral, small ensemble, solo) or free form?

c) My mood, writer's block?

In the end though, you can't rush creativity, so to me it all matters on what state of mind you're in when undertaking something new.

I work at about an hour per 10 seconds. That's even when I'm putting 40hrs a week into a piece. I need to hear it, play it, hear it, work with it, hear it, feel it, hear it to know where it's going next. Sometimes, I work only one measure. If I'm doing computer music, triple that time, only so I can totally screw something up with effects and then rebuild what I think I had.

I seem to have trouble with writing efficiently...last night it took me 1.5 hours to finish 2 MEASURES and revise 4!

And this is my normal pace.

Is this slow? I'm writing choral pieces, so I don't know if there's normally a difference in the rate at which a piece can be written (I'm assuming choral pieces take longer however), but I just want input from others. Thanks =)

That seems incredibly long to me... :P Do you work by hand?

It takes me anywhere from 1 day to a month to compose a piece, depending on length.

:jedi:

Thanks for all the replies. I didn't notice that anyone posted back...until now :P

I really depends...I write out melody (or main theme/themes as it usaually is) and bass as I hear it in my head on paper, then I fill the harmony in the between. Then I copy out the main theme (4, 8, or 16 measures depending) in the main key of the piece (I don't care what people say the key of a piece has everything to do with the emotion you experiance from it even in equal-temperment) and search for canons/canonic material, fugues (on the rare occasions that it works without me purposefully writing a fugue), and other interesting motifs that I can develop. Using the extracted motifs I write out various possibities (I don't use half the stuff I write) can it be developed into a new theme? Is it better suited to help modulate from key to key? And so I do that. Then I write it all out as I see fit, writing anything new that comes to me and works (especially interesting, bizzare, or expressive chords, harmonies and modulations). At that point the piece is basically done. And this takes about a week to two weeks depending on the free time I have, the main themes and its thier harmonies take about 1 1/2 - 2 hours at best. But I don't call the piece complete for months maybe even a year. I spend a lot of time tweaking everything until I think the music is as perfect as I want it and expresses my intention in the best way possible. So I write pretty quickly, but nothing gets done for a long time.

That's how I think about my music. I can play out all the possible chords on the piano (I'm doing mostly choral music right now), but I know that whatever it may sound like on the piano sounds different in a choir. A Major 2nd, ie, sounds quite fine when sung IMO, although on the piano it sounds terrible (again IMO).

No.

Sure, there are composers who seem to compose an opera every week (yes, Philip), but most composers I know aren't any faster at all. Like Robin, it always takes me several months to write any piece, the first few weeks to months consisting of nothing but concepts, plans, sketches. In the final phase of finishing a composition it usually gets a lot faster, but the first few bars generally take me forever to write.

Just consider: If you'd compose 40 hours a week at your rate, i.e. as a full-time job, you'd still write 60 measures per week, which wouldn't be bad at all! (I'd personally envy you a lot for that kind of speed.)

And I generally prefer two carefully composed measures over one huge symphony that some guy spat out carelessly in a day by far. There's already so much music out there. I don't find it necessary to add tons more to that, just for the sake of writing a lot.

Again, that's what I think.

My problem though is that I can't compose 40 hours a week. I'm in highschool, I do honors classes, karate, drama, choir, piano lessons, robotics at a community college...etc

So for me, I feel like I'll finish my piece in maybe 3 months D= and I really want to finish it sooner.

That seems incredibly long to me... :P Do you work by hand?

It takes me anywhere from 1 day to a month to compose a piece, depending on length.

:jedi:

Yes I work by hand :P

Again, that's what I think.

My problem though is that I can't compose 40 hours a week. I'm in highschool, I do honors classes, karate, drama, choir, piano lessons, robotics at a community college...etc

Of course. I don't compose 40 hours a week either. (Well, sometimes I compose more than that, but most weeks a lot less than that.)

My point was just that if it -was- your full-time job, you'd get onward reasonably fast as well. Since it isn't, and you're doing many other things too, I don't find it terrible if it takes you a few months to write a piece. Mind you, many composers that -do- work full-time on composing write only two or three pieces a year (or even less, if it's big stuff like large orchestral works, or even operas etc.).

If your desire is to finish your piece faster than you are able to work right now, that's of course a problem of its own. But only you can solve that really. You can force yourself to work faster and possibly not as carefully anymore. You can sacrifice some other activities to spend more time on composing. Or you simply accept that it takes you three months to finish that piece. The choice is yours.

i don't know, i'm very sceptic as to how time spent composing relates to piece of art being successfull. i don't think that the greater amount of time the better the result. firstly because mechanic time (measured in hours) is just that - robotic feature of any activity. as to what actually goes into piece of art, the amount of time says close to nothing. there are tinkerers who spend enourmous amounts of time around a piece and fail, and there are lighting writers who coem up with something very fine in matters of minutes. history is agood example of this, for example petrarka is famous for his sonets, while his works of all life (afrika, if i'm not mistaken) are much less convincing. so basically his art was created during time offs from chasing his main huge work of art. that you mechanically have a habit of overworking your material is not a sign of any greatness artistically speaking, maybe only a minor moral victory - 'i put so much time into this'. here's a melancholy and joy of creation, ideas are not measured in mechanical time spent to create a body out of it. i think much more goes into composition that does not directly relates to it being put into a body, and this 'much more' is hardly a proper thing to be measured by time. again, there are ideas that must be put to work very fast, in high red hot tempo, there are some which may require much much boring mechanical work, the latter may not be in any sense better part of artistic endevour. there's simply no method and time for ideas. they, and only they, pave the their own way, time of happening and mode of that being worked out.

so, yeah, i see no easy one way determined relation between amount of time and greatness of artistic adventure.

if you need to bang your lady for hours to give her pleasure is not asign of your greatness as a lover.

sadly, but this is a case with art as well.

Oh, it's definitely true that the value of a piece of art can't be measured by the time spent creating it. I don't think that a piece someone worked longer on is necessarily any better than a piece written in ten minutes.

But that's not really the question here. The question is the "legitimacy" of taking somewhat longer writing a piece. And I don't see any reason why this should be a bad thing.

And while you're right that the time spent composing doesn't directly transfer to the "quality" of a composition, I still think that you should spend as much time as you feel is required for that specific work. At least in general. I.e. it's a matter of finding the necessary time for -you- and your -piece-, not just "writing quickly" or "writing slowly".

that you mechanically have a habit of overworking your material is not a sign of any greatness artistically speaking, maybe only a minor moral victory - 'i put so much time into this'.

Well, that's already a rather subjective judgement, if you call that "overworking". It may seem to be overworking to you, but to another person it's just the time needed to do what's necessary. It doesn't have anything to do with a moral victory (and of course also not artistic greatness), but I don't think it was displayed as such in this thread.

Yes I work by hand :P

Oh. That's your problem!

Oh, it's definitely true that the value of a piece of art can't be measured by the time spent creating it. I don't think that a piece someone worked longer on is necessarily any better than a piece written in ten minutes.

But that's not really the question here. The question is the "legitimacy" of taking somewhat longer writing a piece. And I don't see any reason why this should be a bad thing.

And while you're right that the time spent composing doesn't directly transfer to the "quality" of a composition, I still think that you should spend as much time as you feel is required for that specific work. At least in general. I.e. it's a matter of finding the necessary time for -you- and your -piece-, not just "writing quickly" or "writing slowly".

Well, that's already a rather subjective judgement, if you call that "overworking". It may seem to be overworking to you, but to another person it's just the time needed to do what's necessary. It doesn't have anything to do with a moral victory (and of course also not artistic greatness), but I don't think it was displayed as such in this thread.

ok, but then it's really no question, for the subject is pretty much non-existant - i.e. 'to work as much as one thinks it's necessary' is pretty obvious, isn't it? the thing i wanted to say may boil down to this, it's pretty hard thing to know when exactly your piece is finished (i more often than not like somewhat unfinished pieces, that leaves some cracks up to think further than the actual time span duration takes) or what amount of time is right for that. of course you may want to work longer, but it's not always a good thing, even if you as composer insist on that, pauses are/may be a good thing and creates more points of views at something you've done and maybe saves something that you might have overworked if not taken a break, but at the same time they might destroy the integrity of a piece, something of the idea might get lost.

Well, we are in agreement then. I also completely agree that taking a break from a composition now and then can be a very good thing. Those breaks -are- a part of why I'm slow in the first stages of composing. I need some distance to my composition from time to time, especially in the conceptual phase.

But those pauses certainly won't make your composition process faster. It still comes down to taking a while to finish a piece, regardless of whether the time was filled with composing frenetically or with lots of rests and pauses. And of course, as I said before, it isn't a necessity that you take a long time for your piece. Not at all.

"Working as much as one thinks is necessary" may seem obvious, yes, but sometimes people still need that kind of reassurance that it's ok to work in their own personal rhythm. At least, that was one impression I got from this thread.

P.S. It's also perfectly clear to me that "working as much as one thinks is necessary" is a fairly idealistic view in many cases. Composers are confronted with deadlines, with exterior circumstances and conflicting wishes by different parties, etc. Sometimes one simply can't afford to "work as much as necessary" for various reasons. And, as you're saying, often it's also very hard to figure out what's necessary in the first place. I'm simplifying this whole matter, but I'd rather simplify it in this direction than saying "NO! You have to produce a piece of music every week!".

Well, we are in agreement then. I also completely agree that taking a break from a composition now and then can be a very good thing. Those breaks -are- a part of why I'm slow in the first stages of composing. I need some distance to my composition from time to time, especially in the conceptual phase.

But those pauses certainly won't make your composition process faster. It still comes down to taking a while to finish a piece, regardless of whether the time was filled with composing frenetically or with lots of rests and pauses. And of course, as I said before, it isn't a necessity that you take a long time for your piece. Not at all.

"Working as much as one thinks is necessary" may seem obvious, yes, but sometimes people still need that kind of reassurance that it's ok to work in their own personal rhythm. At least, that was one impression I got from this thread.

P.S. It's also perfectly clear to me that "working as much as one thinks is necessary" is a fairly idealistic view in many cases. Composers are confronted with deadlines, with exterior circumstances and conflicting wishes by different parties, etc. Sometimes one simply can't afford to "work as much as necessary" for various reasons. And, as you're saying, often it's also very hard to figure out what's necessary in the first place. I'm simplifying this whole matter, but I'd rather simplify it in this direction than saying "NO! You have to produce a piece of music every week!".

the first one comes down as to where one sees him/herself as an artist. personally i feel huge importance being as free as i can in my work (but, yeah, that's why i am still completely unsuccessful in any financial way composition wise).

the second one would only be a sign of breeding certain graphomania.

again, both cases could turn out pretty well - as a motivation. still, in the end, when you consider yourself pretty much free to be just doing what you want and like (and if you have no financial necessities looming above you), the amount of mechanical time you put in your work really will differ from case to case and generally it will be pretty hard to see it as any indication as to (its) artistic value.

ok, i think we're clear on this one.

p.s. and, if experimentally, i would think every different working rhythm and discipline of dividing time (of one's work) could possibly have many interesting effects on anyone undertaking it and thus enrich one, if not compositionally wise, at least, in knowing oneself better :)