This article reports a qualitative exploratory case study of a composer’s compositional inspiration, thinking, and decision-making. The aim was to explore the dynamics and functions of intuitive and reflective modes of thinking, thus expanding the recent trend in composition research, which has given increasing attention to implicit, imaginative, and inspirational aspects of composition. The data of the study were collected in natural settings in the composer’s work studio during the compositional process. The data comprised stimulated recall interviews, as well as all of the manuscripts that the composer wrote concerning the process under scrutiny. The findings indicate the saliency of the composer’s germinal ideas into the compositional process. The composer elaborated, transcribed, and embodied his multimodal ideas, step-by-step, into musical passages of the evolving score. The process comprised two core procedures. First, compositional thinking was manifested as concrete representations, i.e., the manuscripts. Second, intuitive aspirations entered the conscious mind and subsequently opened themselves up for reflective processes. Two dilemmas were identified in defining the composer’s uncertain and complex working circumstances. The strategic and ontological dimensions of compositional decision-making were identified. The study produced a thick description of what is probably the most complicated phenomenon of musical behaviour: composing outside the confines of a laboratory environment. It explicated compositional thinking as continuous and appropriate fluctuations of intuitive and reflective ideation, monitored by metacognitive function. It also presented a detailed analysis of the dynamics of problem accumulation, i.e., the way the composer decided not to decide, which originated from the composer’s ill-defined working circumstances and his ethos of seeking coherence and employing constructionist aesthetics.
AlbrightD. (2004). Introduction. In AlbrightD. (Ed.), Modernism and music: An anthology of sources (pp. 1–22). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AllenA.ThomasK. E. (2011). A dual process account of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 109–118.
3.
AltyJ. (1995). Navigating through compositional space: The creativity corridor. Leonardo, 28, 215–219.
4.
AltyJ. (2002). Engineering for the mind: Cognitive science and musical composition. Journal of New Music Research, 31, 249–255.
5.
AndersonM.HuddlestonE. (2012). Towards a cognitive and neurobiological model of motivated forgetting. In BelliR. (Ed.), True and false recovered memories: Toward a reconciliation of a debate (pp. 53–120). New York, NY: Springer.
6.
ArgyrisC.SchönD. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
7.
BahleJ. (1938). Arbeitstypus und Inspirationstypus im Schaffen der Komponisten [The work type and the inspiration type among composers]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 142, 313–322.
8.
BailesF. (2009). Translating the musical image: Case studies of expert musicians. In ChanA.NobleA. (Eds.), Sounds in translation: Intersections of music, technology and society (pp. 41–59). Canberra, Australia: ANU E-Press.
9.
BailesF.BishopL. (2012). Musical imagery in the creative process. In CollinsD. (Ed.), The act of musical composition (pp. 53–77). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
10.
BarsalouL. (1988). The content and organization of autobiographical memories. In NeisserU.WinogradE. (Eds.), Remembering reconsidered: Ecological and traditional approaches to the study of memory (pp. 193–243). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BetschT. (2008). The nature of intuition and its neglect in research on judgment and decision making. In PlessnerH.BetschC.BetschT. (Eds.), Intuition in judgment and decision making (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
BraverT.GrayJ.BurgessG. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In ConwayA.JarroldC.KaneM.MiyakeA.ToweJ. (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–108). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
BrownA.DillonS. (2012). Meaningful engagement with music composition. In CollinsD. (Ed.), The act of musical composition (pp. 79–109). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
14.
ClarkeE.CookN.HarrisonB.ThomasP. (2005). Interpretation and performance in Bryn Harrison’s être-temps. Musicae Scientiae, 9, 31–74.
15.
CollinsD. (2005). A synthesis process model of creative thinking in music composition. Psychology of Music, 33, 193–216.
16.
CollinsD. (2007). Real-time tracking of the creative music composition process. Digital Creativity, 18, 239–256.
17.
CollinsD.DunnM. (2011). Problem-solving strategies and processes in musical composition: Observations in real time. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 4, 47–76.
18.
CooperB. (1990). Beethoven and the creative process. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
19.
CreswellJ.MillerD. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124–130.
20.
DamasioA. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, 351, 1413–1420.
21.
De NeysW.GlumicicT. (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106, 1248–1299.
22.
DennettD. (2003). Who’s on first? Heterophenomenology explained. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 53–71.
23.
DeroostN.VandenbosscheJ.ZeischkaP.CoomansD.SoetensE. (2012). Cognitive control: A role for implicit learning?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1243–1258.
24.
DietrichA. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1011–1026.
25.
DoninN. (2009). Genetic criticism and cognitive anthropology: A reconstruction of Philippe Leroux’s compositional process for Voi(rex). In KindermanW.JonesJ. (Eds.), Genetic criticism and the creative process: Essays from music, literature, and theater (pp. 192–215). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
26.
DoninN. (2012). Empirical and historical musicologies of compositional processes: Towards a cross-fertilisation. In CollinsD. (Ed.), The act of musical composition (pp. 1–26). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
27.
DoninN.FéronF.-X. (2012). Tracking the composer’s cognition in the course of a creative process: Stefano Gervasoni and the beginning of Gramigna. Musicae Scientiae, 16, 262–285.
28.
DoninN.TheureauJ. (2007). Theoretical and methodological issues related to long term creative cognition: The case of musical composition. Cognition Technology & Work, 9, 233–251.
29.
EricssonK. (2003). Valid and non-reactive verbalization of thoughts during performance of tasks. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 1–18.
30.
EricssonK.SimonH. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1984)
31.
EvansJ. (2009). How many dual-process theories do we need? One, two, or many? In EvansJ.FrankishK. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 33–54). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
EvansJ. (2011). Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review, 31, 86–102.
33.
FrankishK.EvansJ. (2009). The duality of mind: Historical perspective. In EvansJ.FrankishK. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 1–29). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
GoelV. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
35.
GoelV. (2009). Cognitive neuroscience of thinking. In BerntsonG.CacioppoJ. (Eds.), Handbook of neuroscience for the behavioral sciences (pp. 417–430). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
36.
HargreavesD. (2012). Musical imagination: Perception and production, beauty and creativity. Psychology of Music, 40, 539–557.
37.
HarveyJ. (1999). Music and inspiration (DownesM., Ed.). London, UK: Faber and Faber.
38.
HoltzP. (2009). What’s your music? Subjective theories of music-creating artists. Musicae Scientiae, 13, 207–230.
39.
HommelB. (2007). Consciousness and control. Not identical twins. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14, 155–175.
40.
KatzS. L.GardnerH. (2012). Musical materials or metaphorical models? A psychological investigation of what inspires composers. In HargreavesD.MiellD.MacDonaldR. (Eds.), Musical imaginations: Multidisciplinary perspectives on creativity, performance, and perception (pp. 107–123). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41.
KoriatA.Ma’ayanH.NussinsonR. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 36–69.
42.
KozbeltA. (2009). Performance time productivity and versatility estimates for 102 classical composers. Psychology of Music, 37, 25–46.
43.
KruglanskiA.GigerenzerG. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118, 97–109.
44.
LehmannA. (2005). Komposition und Improvisation: Generative musikalische Performanz [Composition and improvisation: Generative musical performance]. In StofferH.OerterR. (Eds.), Allgemeine Musikpsychologie. Allgemeinpsychologische Grundlagen musikalischen Handelns (pp. 913–954). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
45.
LevitinD.TirovolasA. (2009). Current advances in the cognitive neuroscience of music. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 211–320.
46.
LyleJ. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 861–878.
47.
MacDonaldR.ByrneC.CarltonL. (2006). Creativity and flow in musical composition: An empirical investigation. Psychology of Music, 34, 292–306.
48.
McAdamsS. (2004). Problem-solving strategies in music composition: A case study. Music Perception, 21, 391–429.
49.
McCutchanA. (Ed.). (1999). The muse that sings: Composers speak about creative process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
50.
MirandaE. (2012). Composition, musical creativity and brain asymmetry. In CollinsD. (Ed.), The act of musical composition (pp. 215–231). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
51.
MoisalaP. (2009). Kaija Saariaho. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
52.
MoisalaP. (2011). Reflections on an ethnomusicological study of a contemporary western art music composer. Ethnomusicology Forum, 20, 443–451.
53.
MountainR. (2001). Composers and imagery: Myths and realities. In GodøyR.JørgensenH. (Eds.), Musical imagery (pp. 271–288). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
54.
NisbettR.WilsonT. (1977). Telling more than we know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
55.
ÖllingerM.GoelV. (2010). Problem solving. In GlatzederB. M.GoelV.von MüllerA. (Eds.), Towards a theory of thinking: Building blocks for a conceptual framework (pp. 3–22). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
56.
PerkinsD. (1977). The limits of intuition. Leonardo, 10, 119–125.
57.
PerkinsD. (1981). The mind’s best work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
PohjannoroU. (2008). Paikkoja polun varrelta: Empiirisiä huomioita sävellysprosessista. [Views along a pathway: Empirical observations over a compositional process]. Musiikki [Journal of the Finnish Musicological Society], 38(3–4), 218–274.
59.
PohjannoroU. (2012). Stimulated recall – menetelmä säveltämisen aikaisen ajattelun jäljittämisessä: Mahdollisuuksia, haasteita ja metodologista rajankäyntiä. [Tracking composer’s thinking in action with the Stimulated Recall Method: Possibilities, challenges, and limitations]. Musiikkikasvatus – Finnish Journal of Music Education, 15(1), 24–38.
60.
PolicastroE. (1995). Creative intuition: An integrative review. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 99–113.
61.
PolicastroE. (1999). Intuition. In RuncoM.PritzkerS. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity, Vol. 2 (pp. 89–93). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
62.
ReitmanW. (1965). Cognition and thought. New York, NY: Wiley.
63.
ScherzingerM. (2004). In memory of a receding dialectic: The political relevance of autonomy and formalism in modernist musical aesthetics. In AlbrightD. (Ed.), The pleasure of modernist music: Listening, meaning, intention, ideology (pp. 68–100). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
64.
SchubertE. (2012). Spreading activation and dissociation: A cognitive mechanism for creativity in music. In HargreavesD.MiellD.MacDonaldR. (Eds.), Musical imaginations (pp. 124–140). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
65.
SchubertG.SallisF. (2004). Sketches and sketching. In HallP.SallisF. (Eds.), A handbook to twentieth-century musical sketches (pp. 5–16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66.
SchwartzN. (2007). Retrospective and concurrent self-reports: The rationale for time data capture. In StoneA.ShiffmanS.AtienzaA.NebelingL. (Eds.), The science of real-time data capture: Self-reports in health research (pp. 11–26). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67.
SchönD. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
68.
SimontonD. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
69.
SlobodaJ. (1985). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
70.
SlomanS. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.
71.
SparshottF. (2009). Every horse has a mouth: A personal poetics. In KrauszM.DuttonD.BardsleyK. (Eds.), The idea of creativity (pp. 165–190). Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill.
72.
StanovichK. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In EvansJ.FrankishK. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 55–88). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
73.
SunR.MathewsR. (2012). Implicit cognition, emotion, and meta-cognitive control. Mind & Society, 11, 107–119.
74.
ThompsonV. (2009). Dual-process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In EvansJ.FrankishK. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 171–196). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
75.
ThompsonV.TurnerP.PennycookG. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 107–140.
76.
ThrashT.ElliotA. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 871–889.
77.
van den HaakM. J.de JongM.SchellensP. (2003). Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: Testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22, 339–351.
78.
WigginsG. (2012). Defining inspiration? Modelling the non-conscious creative process. In CollinsD. (Ed.), The act of musical composition (pp. 233–253). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
79.
WigginsJ. (2007). Compositional process in music. In BreslerL. (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education, Vol. 16 (pp. 453–476). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
