Understanding the process: an examination of

formal structuring methods employed by music

students when composing.
Michael Dunn

University Centre Doncaster, UK

michael.dunn@don.ac.uk

Abstract

This paper focuses on the engagement of composers in the creative process of

organising musical ideas into coherent compositional forms. Data was gathered from
multiple student composers (n=7) on the BA (Hons) Creative Music Technology (CMT)
programme of study at University Centre Doncaster (UCD). Participants were invited to
compose an original piece of music using a popular music-sequencing software program
(Logic Pro) in order to track the synthesis of their compositions, with a particular focus
on the emergent structure. Data was collected through multiple save points of the
software session that accommodated the compositional materials, in addition to
recording the articulation of concurrent thoughts and comments from each composer as
they developed their work. Initial analysis of the data has highlighted some significant
themes; participants tended to develop musical structure gradually across the whole
compositional process, and integrated musical structuring processes with the creation of
musical constructs (melody, rhythm etc.), consideration of mood (genre, feel etc.) and
consciousness of musical form (holistic awareness of musical materials), although there
were exceptions to this. Perhaps most significantly, however, was that none of the
participants were observed to really explore a multiplicity of structural permutations in
the development of their work, and instead tended to develop a cumulative, linear
solution.

Introduction

Research in the early 20th Century attempted to establish the belief that musical aptitude
was an innate characteristic, as illustrated by Seashore (1915) who perceived it as ‘a gift
of nature – inherited, not acquired…’ and that musicians are ‘born with it’ (129).
However, subsequent research (e.g. Friend, 1939) has challenged this perspective, and
through more recent studies this original hypothesis has been usurped by a new thesis
represented by studies such as Guerrini (2005) who found that there is ‘no association
between music aptitude of parents and… their biological children’ (31), in response to
which Guerrini suggests that nurturing factors such as home environment, influence of
parents and music education are more likely to influence musical aptitude.
Whilst we acknowledge that some students are intrinsically more musical than
others, as music educators we see ourselves as significant proponents of the nurturing
process, the importance of which is highlighted by Elliot (1995) who argues that
‘musicianship is achieved through music teaching and learning; it is neither a gift nor a
talent’ (236). For us – albeit at a later stage of the nurturing process compared with the
focus of some of the aforementioned studies – we acknowledge the importance of our

  1  
role as teachers and mentors in the development of musical aptitude and realization of
musical achievement.
These thoughts underpin the emergence of this study, which has been driven by a
desire to garner further understanding of the ways that students engage in the process
of composing original musical works. The proceeds of this research will subsequently be
used to inform our approach to teaching and learning of music composition across all
three years of the CMT Degree programme of study at UCD.

Context

Comprehension of the creative act of music composition has historically been shaped by
personal accounts of prominent composers such as Beethoven (see Sloboda, 1985:114)
or through the numerous empirical studies that have focused on the finished composition
as a source for potential insight (e.g. Doig, 1941; Kratus, 1985; Davidson & Welsh,
1988). However, there are a number of criticisms that have been directed towards these
approaches in terms of their capacity to provide a valid and reliable understanding of the
processes involved; for example Collins (2011) argues that ‘any journey from silence to
a finished composition cannot be elucidated purely from after-the-event analytical study
of sonic materials’ (175).
Consequently, it is unfortunate that research focusing on the act (or process) of
composing music – in comparison with that of the finished composition (or product) – is
rather more sparse, something that is perhaps surprising when its cultural significance is
taken into consideration (Collins, 2011). The literature presents some potential issues
that may go some way to explain this, for example the historical perspective of the
‘ineffability of creative process’ (Salembier & Legout, 2012:877), articulations of which
have relied on indistinct accounts of, for example, the inspirational ‘spirit’ that takes hold
of the composer (Taverner, 1999:119). Furthermore, the open-ended and ill-defined
nature of this particular area of creative activity presents inherent complexities, for
example when determining whether or not a proposed solution is acceptable or through
attempts to deconstruct the compositional process into well-defined problems (Lynch et
al., 2006)1. Meanwhile, adopting the stance that music composition is a form of creativity
that involves significant cognitive processing, additional difficulties are presented when
devising methodologies that can accurately and reliably record the composer’s
cognitions, or as Nuhn et al. (2002) state, ‘it is not possible to see into the minds of
composers… and so inferences must be made from that which is observable’ (3)2.
Salembier & Legout (2012) highlight that over recent years, issues such as these have
called into question the feasibility of the study of creative process.
Nevertheless, it is the study of the actual process of composition – i.e. the thoughts,
procedures and techniques applied along the way (e.g. see Reitman, 1965; Bamberger,
1977; Collins, 2005) – that is considered to be most valuable, to offer the most insightful
data to inform our understanding of the intricacies of the act of musical composition
(Sundberg & Lindblom, 1976; Bamberger, 1977; Sloboda, 1985). This stance is

                                                                                                               
1  music
composition is commonly regarded as an ill-defined problem, and it certainly fits with
Ashley and Pinkus’s definition of this domain insomuch as music composition ‘lack[s] a definitive
answer’ which itself is ‘heavily dependant on the problem’s conception’ and involves the ‘[retrieval
of] relevant concepts and mapping them to the task at hand’ (Ashley et al., 2004, cited in Lynch et
al., 2006:2).  
2
despite this, techniques such as verbal protocol analysis (see Ericsson & Simon, 1984) have
been developed and have been implemented with some success (e.g. Younker & Smith, 1996;
Collins, 2005; Collins & Dunn, 2011)

  2  
illustrated by Ojala (2009) who argues that a product-based approach unfortunately
tends to leave us with ‘a set of rules or normative guidelines of how things should be in a
finalized composition’ but significantly ‘with little or no clue of how one gets there’ (169).
In a recent paper (see Collins & Dunn, 2011), we argue that as music educators, an
understanding of ‘how one gets there’ is actually of fundamental importance to our
practice. In a subsequent article that dissects this very issue, Collins (2011) suggests
that this might be better achieved by advancing our understanding of the techniques and
devices used by composers. Collins proposes that this might be accomplished by not
only identifying what these methods are, but more importantly to then perform a closer
examination of ‘how composers actively utilize such compositional procedures’ (175)
during the process of composition.
In light of this discourse it is felt that despite some of the inherent difficulties that
present themselves in this particular research area, a more thorough examination of the
creative process of music composition is required, the pursuit of which has the potential
to offer valuable insight for music educators through an improved appreciation of the
intricate stages involved in the process of music composition.

Approach

This study builds on findings from previous research completed by the author (see Dunn,
2007; Collins & Dunn, 2011) and might be considered as the next stage of a more
extensive research trajectory. This path of inquiry has incorporated a largely inductive
approach to the collection and analysis of data and an iterative relationship with the
subsequent development of interpretative theories. A theoretical approach to sampling
has also been adopted ‘to examine and elaborate on [the] theory’ (Marshall, 1996:523)
generated from the previous research stage. This fits with a qualitative, grounded theory
approach to the research (see Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Consequently, in order to
provide the reader with an understanding of the direction from which this current study
has originated, findings from the most recent work undertaken (see Collins & Dunn,
2011) will now be briefly outlined.
We adopted Collins’ hypothetical model of composition (see Collins, 2005) and
sought to explore it in more detail using multiple student composers (n=3). Findings from
the resultant study concluded that whilst the process of music composition assumed a
broadly linear form, the wider compositional structure was observed to be created
through non-linear, recursive processes. In conclusion, three broad levels of
compositional activity were identified:

1. ‘at a holistic level where the overall ‘solution’ (the entire composition) evolves
through non-linear means of moving, fitting, merging and modifying the
compositional materials that have been developed.

2. at a macro level, where the cycle of processes takes place i.e. ‘broad aims’ -
‘ideas’ - ‘editing’ - ‘solution’ (broader picture) - this process results in the
contribution of musical material to the ‘holistic layer’

3. at a micro level – the observation of individual processes which take place within
each of the ‘macro stages’ - this includes the specification of individual
objectives, the multiple editing processes’

(Collins & Dunn, 2011:73)

However, although the participants had offered significant detail around the micro
and macro levels – in particular at the micro level – there was far less insight achieved in

  3  
respect of their cognitive processes at the holistic level. In response to these findings we
were drawn to question how exactly the overall solution evolved as part of the
compositional process, fundamental to which was the consideration of musical form and
structure.
Junchaya (2010) explains that although the musical terms ‘form’ and ‘structure’ are
often used synonymously they are in fact distinct, albeit related, concepts:

‘There is still confusion in some literature between the concepts of form and
structure… it seems that sometimes both terms are taken as synonyms.
Structure is the set of relations that are drawn from the musical material in a work
and are used for its internal order or organization, independently of the moment
in time in which they happen or are perceived. On the other hand, form is the
way a musical work is displayed in time, which can or cannot make obvious its
structure to a listener, but through a series of procedures lets him have an idea of
it.’

(Junchaya, 2010:2)

These comments were used to inform a clearer comprehension of these key terms:
structure was understood to refer to the procedural organization of musical materials into
a particular sequence that when played or performed from beginning to end – i.e. as an
ordered, composite piece presented in time, – provided an experience from which
musical form presented itself to the listener as part of the compositional whole.
Thus, in order to examine these particular areas in more detail, the macro and micro
stages were largely disregarded in favour of a focus on the processes and cognitions
that pertained to the holistic level of composition where formal and structural
development were thought to occur through ‘moving, fitting, merging and modifying the
compositional materials’ (Collins & Dunn, 2011:73).

Methodology

A qualitative approach was adopted to gather data from the compositional process of
several composers on the BA (Hons) CMT Programme of Study at UCD. The
methodological approach was adapted from the aforementioned preceding studies,
whose methods were evaluated as being largely successful (see Collins, 2005; Dunn,
2007; Collins & Dunn, 2011) and were themselves informed by previous research
successfully conducted in the area (see Folkestad, 1996; Nuhn et al., 2002; Burnard &
Younker, 2002; Seddon & O’Neill, 2003; Nilsson & Folkestad, 2005; Newman, 2008).
However, since this current research sought to adjust the focus of investigation in
comparison with these previous studies – i.e. by focusing on form, structure and the
‘holistic’ level of composition – amendments were made to the selection and
implementation of methods.
Multiple student composers (n=7) were invited to create an original piece of
composition using the Logic Pro software environment. Data was gathered from the
capture of multiple MIDI save-as files and concurrent verbal protocol data, thus enabling
the compositional process to be tracked through an accumulation of chronological
snapshots of the evolving composition that were informed by the composer’s periodic
verbalised reflections made concurrent with each snapshot. The decision taken to
triangulate cognitive data (i.e. the verbal protocol) with practical and technical data (i.e.
the save-as compositional snapshots) was highly significant since it would support a
more reliable interpretation of the data through ‘mutual confirmation’ and ‘cross-

  4  
check[ing]’ (Krefting, 1991: 219), in addition to ‘maximiz[ing] the range of data’ captured
to enable a more ‘complete understanding’ of the compositional process (op. cit.).
No prescribed constraints were enforced regarding timeframe for completion, choice
of genre, composition length etc. whilst participants were asked to complete their work in
their own studio environment at a time convenient to them. These factors encouraged a
naturalistic approach to data collection that is inherent to any qualitative enquiry since
the influence of ‘the physical, sociocultural, and psychological environment’ must be
taken into account for an accurate representation of the phenomenon under study
(Krefting, 1991:214) – or in this particular context what Nuhn et al. (2002:3) refer to as
the ‘natural ecology’ of the compositional process in its environment.
The only imposition placed on the participants was the use of the Logic Pro software
environment to synthesize their composition and record data along the way, the rationale
for which was to standardize the data collection methods. However, since participants
were purposively selected to have significant competence in using this software, any
potential for the data collection methods to skew the trustworthiness of the data
generated was minimized. Apart from this single purposeful criterion, a random sample
was selected to capture a range of musical backgrounds, styles and skill-bases, as was
felt pertinent to represent a cross-section of typical student composers. In respect to this,
the population from which the sample was taken was defined as CMT students that had
regularly participated (for a minimum of 3 years) in original music composition. Although
each member of the sample was selected from UCD for convenience, there is the
aspiration that through evaluation and refinement of the remote data collection methods
employed in this study (discussed in more detail in the next section), future sample
groups could be taken from music and music technology students from a broader
selection of institutions.

Preparation

Since the aim of this research was to explore form and structure within the development
of composition work, it was essential to prepare the participants to adopt a clearer
awareness of these particular areas of their process in order to promote richness and
detail in the data generated. Thus, at the outset participants were instructed to focus on
the development of structure and form in their piece as opposed to aesthetic principles
such as timbre or finer details such as editing, use of effects and mixing techniques.
When producing their verbal protocol data, participants were also encouraged to discuss
their work with a similar focus in mind.
These instructions were communicated to the participants through a set of audio-
visual materials created specifically for this study; this was done to facilitate remote data
generation and collection, whilst also providing participants with a set of materials that
could be referenced on multiple occasions in case they required additional clarification of
the intended procedure; included in the materials were the following:

• An instructional video that explained the purpose of the study and how the
participants were to go about generating and recording data through the Logic
Pro software environment
• A demonstration video that illustrated the instructions with a practical example of
the creation of a MIDI save-as file and recording of the verbal protocol
• An electronic text document that the participant could use to consult as a guide
when considering broad areas to discuss in the verbal protocol3
                                                                                                               
3
materials are available upon request – please contact michael.dunn@don.ac.uk

  5  
Initially, the materials were piloted with two of the participants in order to ascertain
whether the provided instructions were clear; however, no significant issues were
identified and thus the materials were distributed to all participants through a shared,
online folder. This enabled participants to access the materials at their own convenience,
after which they could engage in data generation before sending their completed data
sets back for subsequent analysis using the same shared, online folder.

Data Collection

Data was gathered over a period of four months; once collected, the verbal protocol for
each participant was transcribed and triangulated with screenshots of their respective
save-as sessions. This facilitated an enhanced understanding of how the compositional
structure was developed for each individual composer by presenting the cognitive data
alongside the practical/musical data from the session files.
Although the remote approach to data collection has been effective – especially in
enabling efficient data collection from multiple participants in a naturalistic setting – not
all participants provided as much detail as had been hoped for. This has resulted in
some gaps being apparent in certain parts of the compositions where it has been difficult
to ascertain how or why the participant has gone from point A to B. Whilst this has
obfuscated the clarity of the data at certain moments within the compositions, it has not
impacted too significantly on the analytical potential of the data as a whole. However, if
this study were to be repeated then this is one area that would have to be reviewed.
Subsequent to triangulation of the data were two stages of coding: the first entailed
open coding of the verbal protocol using initial codes that were later refined, whilst the
second stage of coding consisted of consolidating these refined codes into larger
thematic categories that provided the basis for analysis across the data. The thematic
areas established were as follows:

1. Creation of structure
2. Areas for future development
3. Initial ideas for the composition
4. Awareness of compositional form
5. Role of musical materials

In addition, structural mapping was undertaken for each participant’s individual data set;
this involved reviewing the save-as Logic session files to create a chronological
representation of the structural development of each composition. Musical sequences
within the composition were allocated labels (e.g. A, B, C… and so on) and each save
point created by the participant was analysed and reconstructed through schematics
using a combination of these labels. This enabled a mapping of the structural
development from the start to the finish of each participant’s composition.

Data Analysis

The data indicates a range of approaches adopted by the participants in preparing for
their respective compositions. Six of the seven participants evidenced little or no
consideration of compositional structure prior to commencing practical work, making
comments such as:

  6  
 (P1) ‘when I started piecing this together I had no ideas in mind and the parts
and sounds came at random’

(P2) ‘I had no idea when I started what this would turn out like’

Other verbalisations exhibit a slightly more considered approach, however these tend to
be quite vague, and are focused around generic attributes such as ‘groove’ or ‘feel’:

(P3) ‘when I started the composition I started off… to get a general groove and
idea down’

(P5) ‘the main idea’s going to be like an ambient chillout, something relaxed’

Some of the participants did begin to discuss their approach in more detail once they
had started to develop musical materials, suggesting that a clearer direction was found
once some sort of musical context had been explored and/or defined:

(P5) ‘I’ve done the basic rhythm part, and this has led me to come up with ideas
for the lead or the swell pad, for the direction in which the composition is going to
go’

(P7) ‘I found the structuring quite easy… I suppose that was perhaps down to the
music itself because that shaped how things flowed’

Subsequent to the commencement of compositional work, the majority of participants

began to offer an increasing number of comments that related to various aspects of
musical structure. These comments were mainly focused around two areas; firstly,
comments were made that reflected the effective establishment of musical structure:

(P1) ‘There’s a much clearer structure forming now’

(P2) ‘Since the last save point I have a much better defined structure’

(P6) ‘Right I’ve just sort of got a basic first half of a structure going’

Secondly, comments were made that proposed ideas for future structural development:

(P5) ‘it might need a key change or some further development… for the song
structure to actually move forward… around bar 30-40’

(P6) ‘After the first section of the drums I’ll… try to build up a more sort of diverse
range of textures… to build up to the next section… and just sort of develop it
from there’

(P7) ‘I could… develop more prominent percussion to create the final chapter of
the piece… or keep the mood low and have less going on’

These comments evidence a consistent awareness by the participants of structural

parameters during the process of composition, and in particular they highlight the
participants’ evaluation of existing structure and consideration of this in relation to
potential areas of future development. This suggests that the participants possess at
least some level of awareness and competence when dealing with structure and form
within the compositional process.

  7  
 However, returning to the discussion of preparation – i.e. prior to the
commencement of practical compositional activities – the most notable approach was
taken by P4 who interestingly, states that they had ‘done a bit of thinking before [starting]
the track’, and as a result set about defining a structural framework for their composition
before engaging in any practical activity:

(P4) ‘obviously I knew what I wanted to create before I started… I’ve adjusted the
template with the following sections: intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge,
chorus/verse and outro. and that gives me 3.5mins of track, so that gives me
something to work to’

This is the only clear evidence that illustrates the planning of a clearly envisaged formal
structure prior to the development of musical materials, and is something that contrasts
with the other six participants who appeared to have no idea of musical structure at the
outset, instead tending to derive compositional structure in response to, or alongside, the
creation of musical motifs and sequences. This is significant since it highlights a contrast
in preparation for compositional activity, both in terms of psychological and pragmatic
approaches of the composers.
Focusing further on P4, having defined a clear compositional framework including a
total duration to work to, they then proceeded to set about populating each section (intro,
verse, chorus etc.) with musical materials:

P4 ‘I then placed all this [musical material] on the verse where I thought the tune
would kick in where I set my marker. I went back to how I structured the track,
and placed all the percussion where I wanted them to be, for example in the
intro, verse etc.’

In this excerpt from the verbal protocol, P4 explains the process of using markers in the
first instance to set out the different sections of the composition. Interestingly, through
the course of the composition’s completion, P4 does not modify this initial structure in
any way, or even evidence the consideration to do so – this is illustrated below in the two
screenshots that show identical structural markers at the start (Fig.1a) and end (Fig.1b)
of the process:

Fig.1a: Structural markers (indicated by the white text on the dark grey background)
inserted at the outset of the composition (P4) – n.b. there have been no musical
materials created thus far.

  8  
 Fig.1b: Structural markers in the finished composition session (P4) are identical to those
created at the outset – this highlights that the compositional structure has not deviated
from the beginning to the end of the creative process – (the green and blue blocks are
regions that represent the arrangement of musical materials).

Consequently, as well as being the only participant to have planned the structure of the
composition prior to developing any musical materials, P4 is also the only participant that
did not modify their structure during the process of composition in response to or
alongside the musical materials that were created, which is something that all other
participants were seen to do (this is discussed shortly). Therefore, whilst appearing to
have approached the composition with a clear idea of compositional organisation, any
subsequent potential for structural modification or development in response to the
musical constructs of the composition appears to have been ignored or not taken into
consideration.
Looking at the contrasting approaches of the other participants, P2 explains how
their standard procedure when creating musical structure is to construct an eight-bar
loop which they then ‘fill out’ with multiple instrument parts to create ‘the body’ – in this
case two percussion parts, two drones and two synthesized pad parts. Once the bulk of
the musical materials have been created, P2 proceeds to organise them into a more
defined compositional structure that is shaped by an awareness of origin, destination,
and the trajectory from one point to the other; the following comments from P2 illustrate
the use of this technique:

P2 ‘So I decided to start with an 8-bar loop and work down from there; which is
how I usually tend to work in order to generate ideas. It seems like I build up the
main body of the piece, try to fill out as much as possible to start with before
spreading it out from there to create an intro and then the other way to the outro’

P2 ‘it’s got a lot of my own style and techniques, for example when I started I
started with an 8-bar loop as the body, and developed it from there’

The screenshots below illustrate the initial eight-bar sequence and its transformation into
a fully formed structure and the subsequent finished composition. In the context of the
whole process undertaken by the participant, the actual structuring of the composition
constituted the second of three distinct stages as outlined below:

Stage 1. Musical motifs and ideas created in the eight-bar loop (see Fig.2a)
Stage 2. Compositional structure established (i.e. transform Fig.2a into Fig.2b)
Stage 3. Composition embellished and refined until deemed complete (see Fig.2c).

  9  
 Fig.2a: The initial eight-bar sequence

Fig.2b: ‘Spreading out’ of the initial materials into the final compositional structure – n.b.
the structural markers (across the red and pink background) inserted by P2 that denote
‘Intro’, ‘Verse 1’, ‘Mid Section’, ‘Verse 2’ and ‘Outro’.

Fig.2c: The completed composition – n.b. although identical in structure to Fig.2b,

embellishment of the musical content within the structure has taken place

Here it seems that ideas for how the composition could be structured through time were
stimulated through a single evaluation of the constituent musical materials together (i.e.
the contents of the eight-bar loop in Fig.2a), the result of which was the organisation of
these materials into a defined compositional structure (see Fig.2b) that was retained until
completion with no further structural modification (se Fig.2c).
P2 illustrates a more inverse relationship between the creation of musical materials
and the development of musical structure when compared with P4 – P2 began with ‘no
idea… what this would turn out like’, but through the creation of musical motifs in an
eight-bar loop they were able to stimulate ideas to then ‘[spread] it out from there’
creating a clear musical structure with distinct sections. So rather than creating a

  10  
definitive structure to then populate with musical materials as P4 did, P2 was observed
to develop the musical materials first, with the musical structure following thereafter.
In a similar fashion, the majority of the other participants (P1, P3, P5, P6, P7) were
also observed to develop structure in response to, or in conjunction with, the creation of
musical materials, and this is highlighted as a key theme to have emerged from the data.
One of a number of examples that demonstrate this is provided by P5 who states that
completion of ‘the basic rhythm part’ led them to ‘come up with ideas… for the
direction… for how the song’s going to progress’.
A closer analysis of the data across all participants also offers further insight into the
exact nature of this theme; specifically, the data seems to suggest the existence of three
distinct musical areas that appear to be integrated closely with the development of
musical structure:

1. Content (key, melody, rhythm, etc.)

2. Mood (feel, texture, genre etc.)
3. Form (relationship of musical materials through time)

The first area (Content) refers to the actual musical materials created by the
composer, and is illustrated through numerous instances in which the participants were
observed to develop musical structure in direct response to the creation of musical
materials, and vice versa. For example, P3 explains that once drums and piano parts
had been created, they then ‘sort of started to structure it, in… a verse-chorus sort of
format’; P1 discusses how the ‘drumbeats… melodies and chord sequences… helps
[them] to put together and to structure a piece of music faster’; and P6 discusses the
‘[sketching] out’ of a ‘basic first half of structure’ immediately following the generation of
a number of musical motifs.
The second area (Mood) relates to less tangible musical components and is
illustrated by instances in which the participants discussed musical structure in direct
relation to the feel, genre and mood of the composition and the textural qualities of
sounds. For example, P2 highlights the development of a ‘basic structure, with an intro
leading into a sort of verse section’ stating that this then enabled them to develop ‘a
clear idea of the mood of the track’; P5 explains how they strived to achieve a ‘good,
mellow consistency through the whole piece’; and P6 mentions ‘[building] up a more
diverse range of textures… to build up to the next section’ of the composition.
The third area (Form) is defined by the demonstration of a more holistic
appreciation of the musical constructs, not as a structured set of discrete musical
components, but rather the coherent result of this structure when played back together
through time4. Engagement at this level of composition is supported by comments made
by P3 who refers to the ‘different sections’ of the composition and the importance of
developing ‘contrasting dynamics between the different sections’, P5 who mentions
‘building it up’ to ‘develop the centre part of the song’, and P6 who discusses
manipulating parameters to develop ‘progression through the track’ and reaching the
‘climax of the piece’. These examples are felt to demonstrate an awareness of form
since they evidence a holistic appreciation of the composition as a whole.
Each of these themes was apparent across all the participants, but to a greater or
lesser extent for each. Furthermore, in contrast with P2, the other participants (P1, P3,
P5, P6 and P7) tended to develop structure not in one single, large step, but through
multiple, smaller steps that were spread across the whole compositional process,
                                                                                                               
4
this essentially reflects the distinction made by Junchaya (2012) between form and structure as
discussed on p.4 of this article

  11  
INT   A   B   C  
INT   A   B   C   OUT  

illustrating a more extensive reciprocality between the creation of musical materials and
the establishment of musical structure. This is illustrated through the following example
from P6, whose development of structure5 is presented chronologically in conjunction
with their comments that discuss structure, musical form and creation/development of
musical materials.

Phase 1

‘Right I’ve just sort of got a basic first half of structure going’

‘Now I’ve just sort of sketched out… I’ve started messing about with a synth…
and after jamming on the keyboard I recorded a small section in, and then
complemented that with some sort of light metallic percussion which I’ll build up
over the first section’

Phase 2

‘I’ve created a more substantial structure for the piece, I started by going back to
the drums and created more of a defined build up’

‘I’m building the energy in the track, building the drums up in that first section’

‘I also decided to bring in the organ parts a little bit earlier just to try to build up
the energy, sort of the progression through the track’

‘I also decided that by the time the first section was finished it could do with a
break, it sort of felt right at that point, as it was building up for quite a while, a few
minutes into the track, it felt like it needed a bit of contrast so it drops out to the
sound of the more ambient field recording sort of noises, and then it starts to
build back up with the pad sounds building in layers, and so I did a Marimba part
to help that build up in sort of density and texture’

Phase 3

‘Firstly I went back and edited the drum patterns a bit to create a bit of variation’

‘Also, using bits to sort of build into the next sort of section to make them sound
more defined’

                                                                                                               
5  each section of the compositional structure is identified by individually lettered grey blocks  

  12  
INT   A  
INT  
INT   A  
A   A  
A   A  

‘I automated the reverb… to get a feeling of contraction and expansion of the

space which helps to create contrast between the sections and help to sort of
build up the more full sections’

‘the last section of the track being the most full, being the climax of the track… to
augment that I added some delay on the marimbas near the end’

‘I think the track is pretty much finished. I’ve added a few final tweaks, some
finishing touches.’

‘it came out with a sound that I felt fitted the end, something novel, to give the
end section something else, something extra.’

This structural mapping evidences the step-by-step approach adopted by the majority of
the participants, and is significant because it highlights a common technique applied
whereby the creation of musical materials and the establishment of musical structure are
combined throughout the process. Thus, the structure of the piece emerges more
gradually through the process of composition, rather than being defined in one large step
– as with P2 – or completely separated from the composition of musical materials – as
with P4.
However, it has also been observed that none of the participants conducted a
thorough exploration of different structural options or ideas; instead, the participants
tended to establish a single solution for musical structure with very little or no evaluation
of alternative structural permutations, regardless of whether this was done in one large
step (P4 and P2), or across the entire process (P1, P3, P5, P6, P7). It is noted that
consideration of different structural options could have occurred between each save
point – and as a result may not have been captured by the methodology – however,
analysis of the development of each composition through the chronology of save points
does evidence a simpler, more linear approach to establishing musical structure
employed by each participant. To illustrate this, another example of structural mapping
(P7) will now be presented:

Phase 1 – Intro and Initial Theme (A) Created

Phase 2 – Theme (A) Repeated

Phase 3 – Theme (A) Repeated

  13  
INT   A   A   A   B   C   OUT  

Phase 4 – New Section (B) Created

‘
Phase 5 – New Section (C) Created

Phase 6 – Outro Added

Analysis of the example illustrates how P7 began with Intro and Theme A, before
adding new material onto the end in multiple stages. At no point does P7 appear to
consider a rearrangement of structure, for example by changing the order of themes A,
B and C, and hence this approach to establishing musical structure is viewed as using a
linear, cumulative solution, as opposed to being more exploratory and considering
multiple potential solutions. This is highlighted as being another significant theme, which
as mentioned earlier, appears to be prevalent in the structural development of every
participant, since none of the data sets evidenced any real exploration of different
structural options as might have been indicated by a less sequential structural
development.

Discussion

One elementary observation from analysing the data is that all the participants
demonstrated at least some awareness of musical structure as they engaged in the
compositional process. In particular, there was an abundance of comments that reflected
on existing structure and proposed ideas for areas of future development, thus
evidencing continuity across the whole compositional process.
Clearly, participants are aware of musical structure and its role within the
developing composition, however not all participants engaged in developing structure in
the same way. P4 in particular was notable insomuch as they created a defined
structural framework at the outset and then proceeded to populate it with musical
materials, whilst P2 was observed to do the inverse. Although P4 and P2 defined
structure in a single, large step, the remaining participants demonstrated a more
reciprocal relationship between the development of musical materials and musical
structure which was carried out more gradually throughout the whole compositional
process. This has subsequently raised a series of important questions: why did each
participant adopt their particular approach, what opportunities and restrictions are
inherent to each approach, and to what extent is each participant aware of their own
adopted approach? Elicited from the data produced in this study, concepts such as
flexibility, preparation and planning, diversity of approaches/techniques, and

  14  
understanding the nature of music composition, provide a suitable initial framework for
consideration when answering these questions.
Another significant observation from analysing the data is the manner in which
musical materials related to the development of musical structure. The data illustrated
three principal areas of consideration: Content, Mood and Form. As previously
discussed, these were found – broadly speaking – to bear a reciprocal relationship with
the development of musical structure; for example, the musical melodies would inspire
the development of structure, which would in turn shape the mood of the piece, which
would subsequently provoke the creation of new musical materials, which would all
contribute towards a more holistic awareness of the overarching musical form. In short,
the participants were generally observed to make structural decisions based on
familiarisation, consideration and evaluation of these three key areas, highlighting their
importance in the process of compositional conceptualisation and development.
The final point of discussion focuses itself upon the apparent lack of exploration of
different structural permutations by all participants in the development of their
compositions. Participants were generally observed to undertake a rather linear,
cumulative approach to developing musical structure that involved little exploration of
alternative organisation of musical materials. This was somewhat surprising since, when
considering the practices of other types of creative designers (or problem-solvers), it is
very rare that the first solution is accepted, and usually it is only after experimentation
with multiple ideas and through a complex series of development stages that the
optimum solution is established. Yet this complexity of process is not apparent in the
data from this study, since participants tended to develop a single solution as a
culmination of a single, linear trajectory. This is felt to be highly pertinent since it
highlights a potential lack of confidence, awareness and/or aptitude in terms of the
participants’ approach to musical structure and form, which could be particularly
significant in a pedagogical context.

Conclusion

This study is felt to have offered significant insight into the process of composition,
specifically in respect to musical structure and musical form and the ways in which these
attributes are integrated into the compositional process. Additionally, this study is felt to
further highlight the value of a process-based methodology since the most significant
findings have been elicited as a result of being able to track the compositional
development from its origin to its finalisation. Analysis of the data has enabled a deeper
understanding of the ways in which our student composers address musical structure in
their work. There is a clear relationship between the creation of musical materials and
musical structure, whilst concepts of form and genre also appear to be particularly
important. It was surprising that participants did not experiment with a more diverse
range of structural permutations when developing their work, especially given the ill-
defined nature of music composition, and this is something that will be particularly
considered in a pedagogic context. There is also the aspiration that the findings from this
study will be presented to the participants to develop discussion that will offer further
insight into the data collected, which in turn will be used to inform the next stage of this
research trajectory.

  15  
References

Bamberger, J. (1977), ‘In Search of A Tune’. In: D.Perkins and B.Leondar, (eds) The
Arts and Cognition, pp.284-319, Baltimore:John Hopkin Press.

Collins, D. (2005), ‘A synthesis process model of creative thinking in music composition’,

Psychology of Music, 33(2) pp.193–216.

Collins, D. (2011), ‘“Getting there”: Do we need to study how people compose music?’,
Journal of Music, Technology and Education 4(2&3) pp.173–179

Collins, D. & Dunn, M. (2011), ‘Problem solving strategies and processes in musical
composition: Observations in real-time’, Journal of Music, Technology and Education
4(2) pp.47–76

Davidson, L. & Welsh, P. (1988), ‘From Collections to Structure: The Developmental

Path of Tonal thinking’. In: J.Sloboda (ed.), Generative Processes in Music: The
Psychology of Performance, Improvisation and Composition, pp.260-285. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Doig, D. (1941), ‘Creative Music: 1. Music Composed for a Given Text’, Journal of
Educational Research, 35(4) pp.263-275.

Dunn, M. (2007), An Investigation into the Compositional process within a Computer

System Environment; a Case Study Approach, unpublished BA dissertation, University
Centre Doncaster.

Elliot, D. (1995), Music Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. (1980), ‘Verbal reports as data’, Psychological Review,
87(3) pp.215-251.

Friend, R. S. (1939), ‘Influences of heredity and musical environment on the scores of

kindergarten children on the Seashore Measures of Musical Ability’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 23(3) pp.347-357.

Guerrini, S. C. (2005), ‘An investigation of the association between the music aptitude of
elementary students and their biological parents. Update: Applications of Research’,
Music Education, 24(1) pp.27-33.

Hewitt, A. (2002), ‘A Comparative Analysis of Process and Product with Specialist

Teachers involved in a Group Composition Activity’, Music Education Research, 4(1)
pp.25-36.

Junchaya, R.L. (2010), ‘Musical form after the avant-garde revolution: A new approach
to composition teaching’, proceedings of the International Conference: Beyond the
Centres: Musical Avant-gardes since 1950, Thessaloniki, Greece, 1-3 July 2010.

Kratus, J. (1985), Rhythm, Melody, Motive and Phrase Characteristics of Original Songs
by Children Aged 5 to 13, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL.

  16  
Kreftig, L. (1991), ‘Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness’,
The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3) pp.214-222.

Marshall, M.N. (1996), ‘Sampling for Qualitative Research’, Family Practice, 13 pp.522-
525.

Nuhn, R., Eaglestone, B., Ford, N., Moore, A. and Brown, G. (2002), ‘A Qualitative
Analysis of Composers at Work’, University of Sheffield: UK.

Ojala, J. (2009), Space in Musical Semiosis: An Abductive Theory of the Musical

Composition Process, Acta Semiotica Fennica XXXIII; Approaches to Musical Semiotics.
Imatra: Semiotic Society of Finland.

Reitman, W.R. (1965), Cognition and Thought, New York: Wiley.

Seashore, C. E. (1915), ‘The Measurement of Musical Talent’, The Musical Quarterly,

1(1) pp.129-148.

Sloboda, J. (1985), The Musical Mind, New York: Oxford University Press.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory and
Procedures and Techniques, London: Sage Publications.

Sundberg, J. & Lindblom, B. (1976), ‘Generative Theories in Language and Music

Descriptions’, Cognition, 4 pp.99-122.

  17