6.1 Discussion

This chapter focuses on the insights gained through the research process, focusing on how alternate tunings and structured songwriting sessions shaped the development of two completed songs and several uncompleted ideas. The discussion examines creative flow, limitations, methodological adaptation, and the broader implications of the artistic process.

6.2 From unstructured to evolved method

Prior to my one-year break, my research process was mostly driven by intuition, improvisation, and experimentation. While this allowed many ideas to emerge, it lacked the structure needed to follow up, capture, or fully develop them. This resulted in a more “go with the flow” approach that lacked clear parameters and reflective practices. The sessions prior to the one-year break often blended into one another without a strong sense of progression, and I rarely recorded my reflections immediately after each session. Instead, reflections would happen days or even weeks later, making it difficult to track the process effectively or identify what was working and what was not. The questions were also used more as a tool than a mandatory part of the model.

After returning from the break, my approach changed. I became more focused and intentional, and I developed an awareness of how structure could support creativity rather than hinder it, building on the theory and methods outlined in this thesis. This led to the development of a more refined research model, influenced by action research principles. I had a clearer strategy for approaching each session and for maximising the benefits of reflection and decision-making before starting a new cycle. My new approach evolved slightly from the method I used prior to the one-year break, becoming more consistent and structured. Through my reflections, I observed a more divergent pattern in my early process prior to the break. Although this flexibility was beneficial for the creative exploration needed in this research, it also made it difficult to focus on completing a finished product. This is where convergent thinking became important. While maintaining the flexibility and freedom essential to songwriting and exploration, I was able to keep creative momentum by gradually shifting toward a slightly more convergent approach in my model.

This constant reflexivity within my own research ties directly to the action research methodology which my cycles are based on. Integrating action research allowed me to view my alternate tuning approach to songwriting as a research cycle rather than simply a creative burst. By structuring time, limiting tuning per session and prioritising immediate reflection using voice memos, I was able to grow both artistically and as the subject of my own research, ultimately helping to define a clearer method and optimise the final results.

At the same time, I allowed space for creative opportunism when moments of flow appeared during a session aligning with Crispin views regarding dynamic interplay between methodological discipline and flexibility within artistic research (Crispin, 2015). Maintaining this balance between structure and spontaneity helped me stay focused on the final artistic outcome while protecting the integrity of the creative process.

6.3 The Role of Alternate Tunings

The core creative approach within this research were the alternate tunings, not only giving me diverse harmonic options but also initiating emotional tone, vocal phrasing, and structural form. Each tuning can be seen as offering me a unique set of affordances (Gibson, 2015; Norman, 2004), inviting harmonic, melodic and emotional possibilities based on my own musical background and creative intuitions. Each tuning offered a distinct starting point for songwriting, shaping not only the harmonic foundation but also influencing the emotional tone, lyrical development, and the physical interaction between player and instrument.

One key finding was that each tuning helped me write in a different way. When voicing in different chord shapes with a lot of open strings, this led to more flowing melodies and slower harmonic rhythms (song 1), while voicing more dissonance in the tunings prompted exploration of tension, layering or rhythmic complexity (song 2). In this sense, each tuning helped shape the emotional register of the piece from the earliest stages of the writing process. This aligns with Crispin’s view of “input–process–output” as overlapping phases in artistic research, where tools like tunings can influence every stage. (Crispin, 2015, p. 60).

The use of alternate tunings also influenced the physical approach to playing the guitar. Chord shapes, finger placements, and overall playability varied significantly from tuning to tuning. These changes directly affected the melodic lines I developed and shaped the way I approached vocal phrasing and delivery. For example, in “Let me burn”, my reflective engagement with how alternate tunings influenced my vocal phrasing and lyrical direction illustrates what Borgdorff describes as artistic research unfolding “in and through” the acts of creation (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 147). During the cycle of “Let Me Burn”, in Sessions 2 and 3, Tuning 4 created harmonic tension with the minor melodic content I was pursuing, which directly shaped how I sang and developed lyrical phrasing. At one point, I reintroduced lyrics that had been started in an earlier idea but had not previously found their place. Within this new tuning context, those lyrics felt more intuitive and emotionally fitting, showing how existing material can be reactivated through changing musical conditions. Rather than simply composing a melody and assigning lyrics, I was reacting in real time to what the tuning offered, allowing the material to guide the process. Similarly, in Session 4, Tuning 5 prompted a shift from strumming to fingerpicking, which aligned more naturally with the lyrical tone I was developing. This shows how I didn’t just react instinctively to the affordances of the tunings I also reflected on how the emotions created by each tuning influenced my songwriting choices. In this way, the research unfolded both in the acts of composition and through my reflective analysis of those acts, fully aligning with Borgdorff’s (2012) view on artistic research.

Rather than seeing this unpredictability as a flaw, I viewed it as a reflection of the flexible nature of artistic research, where structure adapts to the nuances of the artistic moment. This unpredictability was not a flaw, but rather a reflection of what Darla Crispin describes as methodological opportunism, the idea that artistic practice must be flexible enough to exploit whatever contributes to the success of the artistic outcome (Crispin, 2015, p. 63). Highlighting the need for the structure in artistic research having to stay responsive to the needs of the researcher.

6.4 Divergence vs. completion

Not all the sessions in this project resulted in fully finished songs, and not every cycle had a clear or complete ending. However, this is not considered a failure in the context of artistic research. On the contrary, one of the fundamental principles of this field is that the process itself holds value, and that meaningful insight can be generated through the act of creating (Borgdorff, 2012). One of the most meaningful outcomes of this project was recognising that diverging ideas and unfinished compositions revealed important insights into my writing habits and emotional responses to the tunings. Reflecting on these moments of deviation highlights the link between divergent thinking and how it shaped creative choices. (Guilford, 1967). These moments of redirection became important findings in themselves.

6.5 Practical Insights and Limitations

The practical application of my songwriting model revealed how environmental and contextual factors significantly shaped the creative process. While the alternate tunings provided unique harmonic starting points, the effectiveness of the sessions was often influenced by time of day, level of distraction, and my personal creative state. For instance, I found that writing when having a clear schedule for the day enhanced productivity, while sessions done under pressure or with surrounding noise often disrupted flow. These variables exposed both the affordances and limitations of my method, particularly in relation to the five-minute time constraint, which at times enhanced focus, but at other points interrupted emerging creative flow. These experiences illustrate that affordances are not fixed properties of the tunings or method itself but emerge dynamically through my own creative and circumstantial state (Gibson, 2015; Norman, 2004).