Technique vs. Inspiration

It has recently come to my attention how some composers approach their music-making very technically - labeling chords, roman numerals, showing modulations etc. But this kind of approach is very much the opposite of how I write music. I studied all those technical aspects of music as well of course. But how I make music now is very much based on my gut feelings and intuition rather than technical rules. I am still tangentially aware of all those technical aspects of my compositions of course. But inspiration, for me, comes first and the technical understanding, after.

How do you approach composition? Which approach do you value more? Technique or Intuition? Which comes first and which is secondary?

I doubt you'll get much of response to your post, primarily because of the INDOCTRINATION

taught by schools and possible University's too.

However,once you've had enough of that DOGMA , you start to "FORM YOUR OWN IDENTITY"

which of course will be Obliterated by the masses . "You must Conform".

Music that can create EMOTIONS | Urgency - Terror - Fear | & | Euphoria - Joy - Charisma |

will stand a much better chance of being remembered and Respected.

This is just my opinion you don't have to agree with it, and i doubt if the majority will.

An example of a "SOUND" that caught my attention as a Child.

Hello @PeterthePapercomPoser!

Let's see, by "technical composition," do you mean things like deciding beforehand to resolve to a major chord here or using a diminished chord there to create a darker mood?
Or perhaps composing using mathematical formulas?
In any case, I personally feel that it’s best to use whichever approach fits the moment.
For instance, even when inspiration strikes, I often fail to give it shape because I lack the necessary skills.
At times like that, or when I have no inspiration at all, I’ll compose based on technical principles instead.
Sometimes that process sparks a new idea, and the reverse happens too.
Of course, if you consider a technical breakthrough to be a form of inspiration itself, then we’d really need to clarify our definitions, though perhaps this isn't the place for that.
Sadly, I’m not a gifted composer, I just do it for fun, but I enjoy both methods because each is important and has its own unique appeal.
Personally, I find it satisfying when I start with technique and end up creating something that matches what I envisioned.
(And sometimes, creating something unexpected too!)

Best,

Lithl.

14 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

It has recently come to my attention how some composers approach their music-making very technically - labeling chords, roman numerals, showing modulations etc. But this kind of approach is very much the opposite of how I write music. I studied all those technical aspects of music as well of course. But how I make music now is very much based on my gut feelings and intuition rather than technical rules. I am still tangentially aware of all those technical aspects of my compositions of course. But inspiration, for me, comes first and the technical understanding, after.

How do you approach composition? Which approach do you value more? Technique or Intuition? Which comes first and which is secondary?

Great topic!

I would personally argue the two are inseparable. Sure some may choose to emphasise one over the other as more important although that creates a false binary, and probably reflects their experience and training.

Music is a form of human expression that is built upon a language that has been continuously shaped according to technical innovations, fashion and the political, economic and social conditions of the time.

I'd argue that the syntax of that language, with enough training and application, becomes second nature - much like how we speak our native language. That is the intuitive aspect of producing music and which has greatest utility when producing an outline. The obsession with Mozart's compositional process, given his mythologized status, has helped us understand he produced his music by completing the outer parts first and I expect that has been the common practice across the board. Obviously, this still requires technical knowledge and proficiency in a plethora of domains not limited to form, structure, voice leading, and manipulating tonality; but is nonetheless a relatively free part of the overall process where 'inspiration' is most relevant.

Much of what follows, in my opinion, is the process of adding complexity to that foundation. And this is where one's technical competencies really tend to shine: through orchestration decisions; enriching the voice leading and counterpoint between the various parts; the manipulation of ideas; and ultimately shaping of your ideas into a compelling construct capable of engaging your audience successfully. For me, the latter is often the most technically demanding, with increasing difficulty in accordance with structural complexity (compare the task of writing a conventional minuet with an opening movement to a suite in sonata-allegro form).

Artistic inspiration without technical competency will have a tendency to lead to art that has 'potential' - at best - for the need of further refinement. And technically competent expression that lacks 'humanity' - so to speak - will may result in mechanical and uninspired art. AI music can sound a bit like the latter.

There is a useful analogy that likens the depth of knowledge in music theory to that of an iceberg. The deeper one gets, the more abstract the concepts. But mastery of those deeper realms will provide the composer with a wider variety of tools to apply. One cannot simply be inspired to write a 4 part fugue; they would not get very far if they tried...

Edited 56 minutes ago56 min by Markus Boyd