My new piece - Symphonic Suite [WIP]

[kea]

to suggest the latter appears, to me, at least, to represent a view that "instinct" is somehow an inherently flawed concept to be treated with care and, in some cases, even with a modicum of suspicion as it is not implicity to be trusted.

Got it in one.

Certainly the notion that 'instinct' is not inherently trustworthy and should be examined seems a healthier one than that which states composers should write obeying only their instincts and paying no mind to anything else.

[Richard Barrett]

'instinct' is not inherently trustworthy and should be examined

Indeed - remembering that "common sense" is actually the ideology of the ruling class, or however it was that Gramsci put it.

[Serial_Apologist]

Got it in one.

Certainly the notion that 'instinct' is not inherently trustworthy and should be examined seems a healthier one than that which states composers should write obeying only their instincts and paying no mind to anything else.

I think it's part of our Judaeo-Christian-inherited mindset not to trust in our instincts, as if they're some separately wired part of the mental apparatus or what Freud named the Id which has to be contriolled by some "higher inner self". Isn't this the policeman inside our heads talking? Cultivating, as opposed to repressing, the instinctual and intuitive, is not really part of our culture. But it is in the end our instincts that we depend on, not just for the creative imagination, but in any area of decision-making, including deciding whether or not to trust in them. Unless we are after some "higher authority" to guide us, we really have no choice in the matter, because even the seeking, and maybe the eventual finding, involves that trust. I'm sure your use of the qualfying "only" is meant to serve as positive judgement on the instinctual, when, that is, it is not seen or treated as separable from the rational, but the implication of what you say tends to veer that way.

[Richard Barrett]

I would have thought, S_A, that you'd be more inclined towards the view that what we call instincts are often largely made up of habits based on received assumptions, and thus that it's a good idea to interrogate them in order as far as possible to see those habits for what they are and overcome them, at which point the intuition becomes a more creative faculty.

[teamsaint]

I think it's part of our Judaeo-Christian-inherited mindset not to trust in our instincts, as if they're some separately wired part of the mental apparatus or what Freud named the Id which has to be contriolled by some "higher inner self". Isn't this the policeman inside our heads talking? Cultivating, as opposed to repressing, the instinctual and intuitive, is not really part of our culture. But it is in the end our instincts that we depend on, not just for the creative imagination, but in any area of decision-making, including deciding whether or not to trust in them. Unless we are after some "higher authority" to guide us, we really have no choice in the matter, because even the seeking, and maybe the eventual finding, involves that trust. I'm sure your use of the qualfying "only" is meant to serve as positive judgement on the instinctual, when, that is, it is not seen or treated as separable from the rational, but the implication of what you say tends to veer that way.

Well, I think this is important. One might also usefully substitute other words,and then re examine the arguments? Subconscious, for instance?

Not everything in a creative process is at the conscious level.

[ahinton]

Indeed - remembering that "common sense" is actually the ideology of the ruling class, or however it was that Gramsci put it.

But you seem to make this sound as though you regard "instincts" - or at least what you appear to see as undue reliance upon them - as synonymous with "common sense". I don't get that - they seem more like opposites to me - but then maybe that's because I'm not a member of the "ruling class"...

[ahinton]

I would have thought, S_A, that you'd be more inclined towards the view that what we call instincts are often largely made up of habits based on received assumptions, and thus that it's a good idea to interrogate them in order as far as possible to see those habits for what they are and overcome them, at which point the intuition becomes a more creative faculty.

Well, it would seem that this is not the case - and, frankly, I don't quite see why it should be; OK, if "what we call instincts are often largely made up of habits based upon received assumptions" (and if only "largely", of what might the remainder be made up?), then yes, it can indeed be "a good idea to interrogate them", but your apparent certainty that "instincts" are not really "intuitive" but predicated upon something that is externally imposed and therefore not to be trusted leads you to assume that such interrogation is for the sole purpose of revealing those "instincts" as something quite other than what is generally understood to represent the "instinctive" and must accordingly be "overcome" at all costs. This suggests that all such "habits" must be bad ones and all such "assumptions" must be "received" and thus to be rejected out of hand. That's a road down which I could not go with a clear conscience. I suppose that I could argue that my early Boulez/Stockhausen/Nono &c. experience became something of a "habit" originating in some kind of "received assumption" after a time and that the consequence of my "interrogating" it was the realisation that I ought perhaps to be trusting to instinct rather than just following what I'd been told...

Another aspect of this is that I do not in any case see how "assumptions" can be made without them, or their basis, having been "received" in the first place. "Receiving" something is not a negative act in and of itself; it's surely tacit, complacent, unthinking, unquestioning and indiscriminate "acceptance" of everything that one "receives" that is the bad thing here.

[Ian]

Surely we’ve all got experience of being let down by our instincts (aka gut feeling) - perhaps someone we thought we could trust proves not to be trust worthy. When this happens we might try to recalibrate our instincts. But is this possible? Is it simply the case that we either trust them or we don’t - and eventually we learn which creates the better outcome for us - or at least the outcome we want.

[aeolium]

Certainly the notion that 'instinct' is not inherently trustworthy and should be examined seems a healthier one than that which states composers should write obeying only their instincts and paying no mind to anything else.

I don't think anyone is saying the latter, but I still think (as possibly S_A was saying) that the rational, conscious, reflective alone will not enable creative work; there must be something instinctive, perhaps even naive - an old-fashioned idea for it might be the Muse. It's an interesting discussion as to whether Schumann's first musical thoughts for a composition (by which I don't mean the first thing that came into his head) were "improved" by his later reflection and revision.

[Richard Barrett]

the rational, conscious, reflective alone will not enable creative work

If one were to be entirely "rational, conscious, reflective" there'd be no perceived need or desire for creative work! But "instinct" is often linked, in a compositional context, with ideas like "I write what I hear", and questioning the instinct here takes the form of asking "why is it that you hear that particular thing? how much does it really have to do with instinct and how much with reproducing something previously heard from outside?". And of course one's instinct might lead one to a necessity to explore what hasn't yet been heard.

[Pabmusic]

If one were to be entirely "rational, conscious, reflective" there'd be no perceived need or desire for creative work! ...

Why? That doesn't follow at all.

[Ian]

I’ve usually regretted not following my instincts. For example, when composing I might have a gut feeling that something is wrong with a piece. However, merely having that instinct doesn’t solve the problem I’ve still got to work out what it is that is specifically wrong, and then decide what, if anything, is to be done. For me, instinct is a useful part of the process, and has no more to do with received wisdoms/stupidities than anything else has.

[Pabmusic]

I’ve usually regretted not following my instincts. For example, when composing I might have a gut feeling that something is wrong with a piece. However, merely having that instinct doesn’t solve the problem I’ve still got to work out what it is that is specifically wrong, and then decide what, if anything, is to be done. For me, instinct is a useful part of the process, and has no more to do with received wisdoms/stupidities than anything else.

Believe me, instinct is important. We have evolved to behave instinctively (instincts were no doubt important on the African savannah). However, instincts rarely triumph over logic - the brain is easily tricked - but that doesn't make the two incompatible at all. Don't blindly follow your instincts, but don't ignore them either.

[ahinton]

If one were to be entirely "rational, conscious, reflective" there'd be no perceived need or desire for creative work! But "instinct" is often linked, in a compositional context, with ideas like "I write what I hear", and questioning the instinct here takes the form of asking "why is it that you hear that particular thing? how much does it really have to do with instinct and how much with reproducing something previously heard from outside?". And of course one's instinct might lead one to a necessity to explore what hasn't yet been heard.

A balanced standpoint such as you present here does indeed make sense (albeit mercifully not "common" sense!), except that, like pabmusic, I don't recognise the logic behind the assertion that "if one were to be entirely "rational, conscious, reflective" there'd be no perceived need or desire for creative work!" - although one might be forgiven for assuming that composers, purely by reason of what they do, would perhaps be more likely than some to question all manner of things including their own instincts. I see no problem, therefore, with "I write what I hear" provided that one has, if necessary, questioned why one does indeed hear it in the first place.

That said, it seems to me to raise at least two issues. The first concerns what the composer shold do should questioning of his/her instincts reveal that "what he/she hears" is indeed largely instinctual rather than the subconscious victim of received musical opinion. The second is that, as it is in any case difficult if not impossible to get away completely from what one has "previously heard from outside", one might question to what extent it's even a good idea to try, provided that one's musical conscience nevertheless ensures as far as possible that, in responding to (or even reacting against) what one may have heard, one is not merely reproducing it or something akin to it, for that would be both lazy and uncreative.

Some sense of a need to prioritise conscious and deliberate attempts to turn one's back on what one might have heard above all other considerations seems to me to emerge from what you write here; given that most music that anyone has heard relates to other musics in some ways, I'm struggling to figure out the point of exercising such a priority, but perhaps I've not quite got the right end of the stick.

[Richard Barrett]

Why? That doesn't follow at all.

I think you may have misconstrued what I was trying to say. What is the "rational, conscious" reason for being creative in the first place? The desire to create/express is quintessentially an instinctual thing, if anything is.