Some Philosophical Questions on Composing

What is it that is taking place when you compose? What does your composing signify for you? What do your compositions - products of the compositional process - signify (to you or in general)? In composing are you a servant of your piece or is your piece your servant? Do you rather submit to ispiration or impose your judgement and will? Do you compose or are you composed through?

Through these questions I am aiming to focus composer's attention to their ideas about composing. I think this exercise will provide us all with a lot of insight as well as the good of growing through sharing experiences.

I encourage you all to participate.

I will start myself by explaining what composing means to me. To me composing is a process whereby I am guided by inspiration and a total servant of it. I can never decide how a piece will be. It is only inspiration (God) that will decide how He will create that piece through me, what he intends to accomplish through my creating that piece, how He aims to make me grow toward perfection and help me realize His perfect vision for me. As such to me composition is a communication/communion with the divine, with God. It is a process of making sense of oneself and of one's experience by relating to God and communicating with Him. As such in composing we are referring to the ultimate frame of reference which is God and through whom alone do we as beings become meaningful. Thus for me composition is the highest art. It is only in this context that I can understand pieces such as Beethoven's Opus 131, Bach's Art of fugue, or Mozart's K. 515, or for that matter the third movement of Khachaturian's Violin Concerto. They are all pieces in which a human soul is trying to make sense of himself and to locate/orient himself in relation to God, and in doing so becoming an instrument of God both in perfecting himself, serving others and serving God.

Hello luderart,

Interesting post. I myself dwell daily upon the philosophical implications of art, life, morality, and the interrelationship between them all. I however do not share your religious and or metaphysical views. I am ambivalent about the existence of god and the necessity of the incantation of even the idea of god. I believe there is much more intellectual merit to be found in philosophy and rational inquiry then in reified notions of divinity. Although it remains my inclination to believe in such a thing as a 'higher truth' or 'higher law', this remains completely untintelligible, and therefore implausible, and beyond the scope of rational inquiry. I however, do not wish to discuss religion, I find it tedious and prone to controversy. Nevertheless I do think one can find quite an easy analogy between our individual impulses to 'create' (or what we percieve to be, or define as creation) and the preconception of the universe as 'created' by a higher being or power. Let us call this for the time being the 'little creator thesis', which holds that each person possess within them a realizable ability to engage in divine 'communication' with a higher being through creation and art. I reject this view, because it is more often that not borne out of an antiquated judeo-christian worldview, and I don't believe there is any merit in trying to supplant that perception with other religious viewpoints. As I stated earlier however, I do not wish to discuss religion. I will, for the sake of brevity, confine my answers to my experience and reflection upon composing, rather than discussing art in general. My views are tentative and will most likely change or modify in the future. Nevertheless here are some brief responses to your questions.

What (do you believe) is taking place when you compose?

That question has both metaphysical and physical implications. In a physical sense, just to state the obvious, I am usually at my computer, not always in my room, but generally somewhere comfortable - a friend or family's house or my own. I will have already been working on several pieces whose melodies could be echoing through my head, stimulating my memory of them, and hence my urge to return to them, edit them, and reintepret or marvel over what is alread there. At other times, I will feel an impulse, seemingly out of thin air, to score down a melody that I have come up with in my head, or extrapolated from a series of sounds that I may have momentarily heard (birds chirping, television jingles, my grandfather's hindu incantations, mobile phone ringtones, etc. - the list of influences in endless and expotentially grows), or varied or imitatied based on classical music that I have heard. There are plenty of other bases for these arbitrary creative moments, but for the sake of clarity I will assume all people expeience these, and refer to them commonly as 'moments of inspiration'. I will however discuss that later. In another way though, composing performs a particular function for me, although I rarely like to see it that way. I will usually have a very dreary, but obligatory task (as I do now!...) such as an essay, assignment, or household chore that I will be reluctant to complete. In order to escape from this task, I take up my violin, or the piano, or put on some classical music, or compose. I find myself entering into an entirely different sense of time and reality when I do this. As I play, or as I listen for melodies in my mind's ear, I become increasingly disconnected from the world around me. I enter into a very peaceful, timeless, non-verbal realm which I cannot fully express in words. Nevertheless, this disconnected feeling does not tend towards a feeling of isolation or alienation, but provides a degree of comfort and security. I feel enveloped and swaddled by sound alone, and am able to tune out (no pun intended) from the dreariness and small-mindedness of those around me - namely my family. It is not always done with this intention; but upon reflection (as is the purpose of this thread, I assume) I believe it to be quite often the case.

Metaphysically speaking, I think that warrants an entirely different response to the question. I often like to think of Herman Hesse's description of composition in the preliminary few pages to his novel Gertrude as the universal experience of composing. Neverthless, my answer stems from my last statement, which is a feeling of disconnectedness from the world. When I am composing, or desiring to create things, or reading about music with the intention of creating more of it, I feel that I am increasing my understanding of the historical imperative that shapes human 'destiny' (used in a colloquial sense here). I like to think that I am increasing my awareness of my own place within the narrative of history. I'd like to think that individuals from the past, whether it be Verdi, or Beethoven (to use examples) are not distant beings from an antiquated time, possessing an insurmountable genius. But rather there work, and their lives, can move beyond the allegorical and into the real. That is, that I come to understand their work not in its contextual framework, but in the very impulse toward music that I share with them. In this sense, deeply educating oneself allows us to view human history in a contracted experience of time. The more educated one is, the more they understand how the past is inextricably a part of their own future. It allows one to effect change, and submit to a higher concept of what being a human being entails. Thus when I compose, whether I am (consciously or unconsciously) imitating work, or attempting to form it anew, I feel as though I am communicating with men and women who have lived more fully, and have come closer to answering either the question "what is the human being?" or "what is the human being capable of"? Here however, I mix my abstract personal philosophies with my own limited education in philosophy. In sum, composing represents - a higher, more abstract form of communication with the historical and ontological question 'what is human being", and in the process of this, I wish to find ethical-existential (to borrow a Habermas term) instruction on how to live life more fully, in order to answer the equally pertinent question "what is life?".

What does composing signify, what do your products signify?

I think I have given some indication of my opinion of what composing signifies in another post in this forum. I will provide the link: http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/when-did-you-start-composing-1271-6.html But to me, composing represents a shift in your experience and conceptualization of life. I reinvoke the Augustan dichotomy between the 'artist' and the 'critic' in answering this question. A 'critic' I feel is one who wishes to illuminate, or paraphrase, or articulate in a manner that can is comprehensible and concise what has been created by the artist. This is itself a difficult process and could be considered an artform, but it is certainly not art. Art on the other hand is a different metaphysical grounding of the world. Whether you believe in a perfectly ordered universe, or one that is inherently chaotic and unpredictable, art provides you with an entirely new set of conceptual tools by which to forge reality. Deferrence is given to the 'sponginess' of existence - things follow rules and principles, but can break from all that to become something else entirely. Art, Music, and composition attest to the mysteriousness of existence, and the inability to legislate order and reason entirely, the ability to marvel over your own creation, even when it has been entirely pre-thought out and contrived. I am not saying this so much out of a romantic belief in a post-18th century notion of art, but saying that there it is an inviolable dichotomy between the algebraic, matematical order of music, and its ability to express the un-expresssible, the je ne sai quoi, so to speak. To be in a state of wonder at your own creation, that is truly an unparalleled joy. This is not always a self-indulgent thing - but it is the reinvocation of that child-like impulse towards fascination. That is perhaps what I think composing signifies. The works themselves are merely an extension of this - they provide a catalogue of experiences which meld together real memories with entirely fictional soundscapes and landscapes of the imagination. These works can deepen and obfuscate our experience, but in their act of creation (or rememberence) resolve into a crystal-clear sense of order, and propriety, and expression - that even if one is to attest to having one of these reflective moments - they can say tha they have lived life.

(Continued in next post....)

(...Continued from last post)

Are you a servant, or are you a master?

I think this is related to your question of 'inspiration' or 'judgment/will'. I think this is more of a practical question than a philosophical question. Yet it has a principled basis. As I do not believe in a higher power that is guiding and influencing, you can only believe you are a servant in this sense if you retain some religious or cosmological worldview. I do think however, you can think yourself quite easily a servant of humanity. In this sense, the somewhat univesal appeal of music is brought to the forefront. If you believe that you are answering to a historical imperative wihch places the responsibility of influencing the course of the world, humanity, and other upon your shoulders, than music will invariably lead you to that. You may create work that is only able to be appreicated in esoteric circles, but nonetheless, your intention has remained clear. Sometimes even without a distinct intention you can create something that becomes deeply influential to the greater generality of mankind. I think of Mozart's Nachtmusik and its relatively universal (forgive the oxymoron) appeal. I think when I have got to a stage where I too have philosophically, intellectually, and physically aged such that I can realize this outright, then I am a servant. Until then, while I am young and still searching - I am a master. The two are never that clear, and most likely dialectically presuppose each other than anything else. In terms of being a servant or master over my own inspiration, I think having the ability to generate musical ideas effortlessly and frequently is a necessity to being a good composer. Inevitably however, I think your judgment or 'will' provides the basis for your ideas ever becoming music. Like an artist with a sketchbook, you need to endlessly engage in trial and error to make any progress with your ability. Some find this easier than others, but I think that is a generally acceptable premise. Besides, I think this cognitive dichtonomy is a rather antiquated 18th century concept that is now out of place with developments in modern sociology and psychology. Nevertheless it persists in a fashionable sense of understanding how our minds work.

Well, thats all from me! Off to do some work now. Hope I didn't write too much :P Ciao,

Pravin

You asked (in the shoutbox). Rather than discuss your view in detail right now, here's mine (though, no suprise, they coincide here and there)!

I actually prepared a reply but my views embrace ideas that are not welcome here and usually stop threads!

So to be as brief as I can, I developed a model using the idea of a universal energy that exists behind every creative act. It isn’t god or religion, perhaps mystical or meta-physical but if people want to put those terms to it then fine. It still has an esoteric logic so allowing some kind of modelling, therefore a modicum of manipulation and control that go with it.

Anyway, this energy reaches into humanity where those susceptible can partially channel it into material creative acts where they can’t unleash it raw (or aren’t allowed to – which is more often the case).

The root power/impetus, call it what you like, behind what and why they are trying to express is too big a discussion here but basically I see that as arising from discrepancies/conflict between need/drive and necessity. .I avoid the word “emotion” wherever I can. In fact, I see this as another energy but unique to the individual - perhaps the driving force behind their soul. - Understand, I don't like these words but material science has yet to come up with usable stuff so they'll have to do. (There are more sides to this, of course, and no problem if you violently disagree because countless other views are valid.)

Bringing anything creative into the world subsumes the skills to deliver it (or derive some value from the process of producing it – perhaps a little of both). So would-be composers have to develop enough “secretarial” skills to deliver what their imaginations are trying to dictate.

Why music, though, not some other creative endeavour? Does something genetic trigger an interest in organising and manipulating sound (beyond most people’s abilities to use speech)? Environment? .Could be from elsewhere – you’ll always find artists (in the broad sense) with little evidence of their art inherited and whose environments aren’t at all supportive – Delius, frinstance.

But I seriously doubt genetic data bestows its owner with detailed instructions on how to produce a list of works (possibly for instruments yet to be invented) – so until proven otherwise, the 'energy' idea will have to do.

As for master/servant – it’s the composer/secretary thing. You’re always going to be both though the Master might often get frustrated at the secretary’s limitations; just as the secretary can sometimes be sitting there with all the skills in the world, waiting on a sluggish or undisciplined imagination.

Just some thoughts.