What exactly is a "song" anyway?

SinisterMinisterX

SinisterMinisterX

Illuminatus
Staff member
There's a discussion on reddit now, in r/music, inspired by the Pink Floyd track "Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict". Is this actually a "song"?

The discussion centers on the traditional definition of a song as "a piece of music with words sung to instrumental accompaniment, usually with lyrics in the form of poetry".

Here's some of the discussion, with my own two cents in there.

What do you guys think? Is it accurate to call "The Great Gig in the Sky" or "Transylvania" a "song"?
 
I attended a lecture last year by a college prof who argued that traditional music can be divided into two categories: song or dance. A "song" has an extreme focus on melody. It is often free flowing and lyrical (doesn't need to be sung) and often doesn't have a clearly defined rhythmic pulse or beat. Most romantic/classical music will fall in this category. A "dance" is very rhythmically driven. A melody can still be present but it needs to conform to a defined rhythm that drives the piece. You'll find this a lot in African or South American music. Here's a personal favorite example of a dance:

Obiviously traditional definitions have evolved and 20th century classical broke any rules that could neatly pigenhole music into any strict categories, but I think modern music can still at least loosely follow these distinctions. For example, most pop music would fit snugly in the dance category.

Part of the reason I bring this up is because of the two songs you mentioned. I think they're perfect examples of what I'm talking about. Great Gig In the Sky definitely falls into the category of song. While there aren't actual lyrics, the vocal melodies are very lyrical and I could easily imagine them being replaced by, for example, a woodwind section. The piano has a pulse (later followed by the rhythm section) but the vocals clearly aren't conforming to this.

Transylvania on the other hand is definitely a dance. Throughout the song it has a definite rhythm that the melodies outline. It is perhaps the most rhythmically driven Maiden song.

As for more experimental music like the Pink Floyd tune, I suppose attempting to categorize it sort of defeats the purpose of that kind of music.
 
Maybe this isn't correct...but let's try.

So, isn't "What is the difference between a musical piece and a song?" an important question in this case?
 
Huh, I was just thinking about this. I prefer to avoid this debate when I'm speaking in Turkish by using the word parça which means piece for every kind of musical work. When I'm speaking in English, I tend to use the word song in reference to works with lyrics, and the words composition and piece in reference to works without lyrics.
 
Stardust said:
So, isn't "What is the difference between a musical piece and a song?" an important question in this case?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's another way of asking the same basic question.

Mosh said:
I attended a lecture last year by a college prof who argued that...
Click to expand...

I know there are plenty of professors who would disagree with that one (and of course plenty who would agree). There's no denying that starting in the 1750's, most composers preferred songlike melodies. Music critics of the time noted that melodies should be tuneful, memorable, active without being busy, and above all natural. In fact, this is one of the central defining traits of the Classical era. (Note the capital C, I'm talking 1750-1800 here specifically.)

Nonetheless, the word "song" continued to be used only for, well, songs. Even though composer sought to be songlike in their instrumental pieces, they never called those pieces "songs". The question I'm asking is about the terminology specifically as applied to individual pieces. The "song vs dance" distinction is useful, but it's far more generalized.

Etymology time: the Latin verb "to sing" is cantare, and the Latin-derived root "cant" (transmitted through Italian) appears in a few terms worth knowing, if you care about music history. A "cantata", in its original definition, is any piece of music with singing. The corresponding term for an instrumental piece is "sonata", where "son" derives from the same root as "sound", and refers to playing a constructed instrument (to produce sound, but not by singing). The definition of "cantata" and "sonata" evolved over time, but the distinction between music with voices vs. purely instrumental always remained part of the difference. There's no sonata with voices, and no cantata without them.

So when musicians started to prefer "songlike" melodies for their instrumental pieces, they started using the Italian word that means songlike - cantabile - in their musical directions. Here's the most famous example of all time: Beethoven's "Sonate Pathetique" second movement, headed "Adagio cantabile" (slow and songlike).
The title for the whole piece is "Pathetic Sonata" in French. "Pathetic" here refers to pathos, as the opening movement is exceptionally stormy for its time. "Sonata" because there's no voices: it's a piano composition.

All of that is just some background of course, since the key is how we apply the word "song" to modern music. I've freely used "song" to talk about instrumentals many times, like I'm sure we all have. But nonetheless we still acknowledge "instrumental" as a special category of song - one that is missing an element usually present, thus the special name.


The Pink Floyd track "Several Species" is a case that, like Mosh mentioned, isn't really about "song" at all. It's an edge case, pushing and prodding at our definition of "music" itself - like wind chimes, 4'33", or Killswitch Engage's cover of "Holy Diver".
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
Seems way too general to me. That's just a definition of music.
Click to expand...

True, but I honestly feel the difference between "songs" and "pieces" (or any other monikors) are purely semantic. Music that is composed to be heard in a specific form (i.e. with some form of a title) is a song. It is also a piece. I just don't see the need to put them in different boxes. There are different types of songs/pieces, but I can still consider them all songs.
 
As a listener of much instrumental music, I cannot agree with the statement that a song needs sung words. Then again, I can't define what a song is. I wouldn't call Vivaldi's "Spring" a song.
 
Songs like La Villa Strangiato and YYZ can be noted.

La Villa Strangiato is more like a musical piece and YYZ is more like a (instrumental) song.

Once again, I might be wrong here.
 
First thing that comes to my mind when I see your point, Stardust, is compactness. Compact works have more of a "song" feel to them while stretched out works have a "composition" feel. Don't confuse compactness with length, either. The Talisman, for example, is just 3 seconds shorter than Isle of Avalon but the former has a song feel while the latter is more of a composition.
 
Indeed, most songs historically are short, five minutes or less. It seems likely that jazz is partially responsible for expanding the concept of "song", since they commonly took short songs and turned them into extended pieces.
 
The Flash said:
The Talisman, for example, is just 3 seconds shorter than Isle of Avalon but the former has a song feel while the latter is more of a composition.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I guess I like to digest and analyze music quite a bit and I am also aware of and busy with feelings which aspects in music can arouse. But when I am zooming out (to the extent of one track*) I do not feel (nor have the need to make) a difference between song and composition. Probably because it makes no difference in its effect a track can have on me. It's all inside (both the music and person) that matters.

*Without thinking about it I've used the words song, composition and probably other terms. In the end, it is represented by a track, and I like to use it in this post, because song or any other term would distract from my point.
 
Last edited:
The Flash said:
First thing that comes to my mind when I see your point, Stardust, is compactness. Compact works have more of a "song" feel to them while stretched out works have a "composition" feel. Don't confuse compactness with length, either. The Talisman, for example, is just 3 seconds shorter than Isle of Avalon but the former has a song feel while the latter is more of a composition.
Click to expand...
I didn't confuse compactness with length. It was just my interpretation...which is probably completely wrong,
 
Stardust said:
I didn't confuse compactness with length. It was just my interpretation...which is probably completely wrong,
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking to you when I said "Don't confuse". I took your point and elaborated on it, it wasn't a reply.

Forostar said:
Interesting. I guess I like to digest and analyze music quite a bit and I am also aware of and busy with feelings which aspects in music can arouse. But when I am zooming out (to the extent of one track*) I do not feel (nor have the need to make) a difference between song and composition. Probably because it makes no difference in its effect a track can make on me. It's all inside (both the music and person) that matters.

*Without thinking about it I've used the words song, composition and probably other terms. In the end, it is represented by a track, and I like to use it in this post, because song or any other term would distract from my point.
Click to expand...

I don't have the need to make a difference between song and composition either. It's not something I think about when I listen to music.
 
If I can sing along or hum along, I think of it as a song. So, Transylvania would count. I suppose that fits with Mosh's description of song vs. dance. Where does Beethoven's Ninth fit in? Certainly the well-know Ode to Joy melody could count as a song, but where to draw the line? Is the whole symphony a song? Is each movement a song?

Under U.S. copyright law, they avoid the distinction by referring to "musical compositions" and "musical works." But artists think of owning "songs" they wrote. You can get a copyright in an album, too, but that's typically thought of as a compilation of other musical works, i.e., songs.

Here's a hypothesis to think about: a song is any musical piece that stands alone and can be played by itself, and doesn't necessarily have to be played as part of a larger piece or compilation, and is, itself, not a compilation of other songs. So, a movement of a symphony would count, as would the symphony itself, but the first ten bars arguably wouldn't. A traditional rock album probably wouldn't count, but something like Thick As A Brick would.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
Here's a hypothesis to think about: a song is any musical piece that stands alone and can be played by itself, and doesn't necessarily have to be played as part of a larger piece or compilation, and is, itself, not a compilation of other songs. So, a movement of a symphony would count, as would the symphony itself, but the first ten bars arguably wouldn't. A traditional rock album probably wouldn't count, but something like Thick As A Brick would.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Seems a lot of people think this way. It's a fact that the traditional definition of "song", the definition that's been used for hundreds of years, would say this is wrong. That's what intrigues me: the change in terminology.

I still think parts of this are deeply wrong. In particular: a symphony - the whole thing or a single movement - is absolutely not a song at all. It's conceived, written and played with entirely different intent.

I'm honestly surprised that so many people are comfortable using "song" as a synonym for "any piece of music". It's always been traditionally defined as a specific type of musical work. It feels to me like people are saying the musical equivalent of "pizza is food, therefore all food is pizza".
 
The idea of "intent" is interesting, because there's a lot (relatively) modern songs that are written with symphonic intent. Specifically, most prog epics. If we go by intent, then Close To The Edge and A Change Of Seasons are both rock symphonies.

Traditionally, songs are short and convey one primary idea. Obviously, that is no longer necessarily true. I like Foro's use of the word "track" because that's really the root of the change in terminology, I think. All music nowadays gets released as a track on an album. Most of those tracks are obviously songs by the traditional definition, so we started using the word "song" to describe all tracks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top