Do you consider a song a "song" if you haven't recorded it yet?

[J.C. Scott]

I was wondering how others view this. I don't mean from a legal (or copyright) perspective. Let me give you an example, let's say I can envision an entire song in my head but haven't recorded it yet in any form. Is that visualization still considered a song, assuming the person can envision it with crystal clarity and it's a complete musical idea? Would you consider this a song or simply a song idea, and only consider it a song AFTER it has been written down or recorded?

Thanks for your opinion

[andydeedpoll]

i'm very aware that things sound very different once they've been moved out of my head onto the guitar, piano, song writing book or into Cubase... i suppose i like to see it as the potential-song, the ideas there, but for me at least, its when it gets turned into actual sound that can be heard that it starts to take shape, and become a real piece of music. doesn't mean it has to be recorded though... but i find this gives a sense of 'conclusion' to a song, because once it's been recorded, it can't be changed and altered in the performance of it - the recording is always going to be the same, which to me at least, feels like the song is finished.

Andy

[J.C. Scott]

Originally Posted by andydeedpoll

i'm very aware that things sound very different once they've been moved out of my head onto the guitar, piano, song writing book or into Cubase... i suppose i like to see it as the potential-song, the ideas there, but for me at least, its when it gets turned into actual sound that can be heard that it starts to take shape, and become a real piece of music. doesn't mean it has to be recorded though... but i find this gives a sense of 'conclusion' to a song, because once it's been recorded, it can't be changed and altered in the performance of it - the recording is always going to be the same, which to me at least, feels like the song is finished.

I agree that in one sense a song isn't really FINISHED 'finished' until it's recorded. In another sense though, I consider a song complete from a composition standpoint enough to call it a song after it's been written in my mind and is perfect as is (not going to undergo anymore creative change) and I'm just simply trying to copy the idea from my head to the physical world at that point.

I don't always write full length compositions in my head and if I don't have a complete musical idea then I call it a song 'idea', not a song, per se, although I've been known to refer to it as both.

Does that view make any sense?

[fraserhutch]

I agree- in my mind a song does not need to be recorded, and that there is nothing in the recording process that inherently "finishes" or "completes" a song. It may add to it, and even change it, but it is not necessary, again in my opinion, to record it.

What about all the works that predate recording?

Originally Posted by J.C. Scott

I agree that in one sense a song isn't really FINISHED 'finished' until it's recorded. In another sense though, I consider a song complete from a composition standpoint enough to call it a song after it's been written in my mind and is perfect as is (not going to undergo anymore creative change) and I'm just simply trying to copy the idea from my head to the physical world at that point.

I don't always write full length compositions in my head and if I don't have a complete musical idea then I call it a song 'idea', not a song, per se, although I've been known to refer to it as both.

Does that view make any sense?

[J.C. Scott]

Originally Posted by fraserhutch

I agree- in my mind a song does not need to be recorded, and that there is nothing in the recording process that inherently "finishes" or "completes" a song. It may add to it, and even change it, but it is not necessary, again in my opinion, to record it.

What about all the works that predate recording?

I agree. But what about songs that haven't been recorded or even expressed through playing and are solely a product of your imagination? If they are complete compositions that only require copying from your head to a recording, is there any real reason why these should not be considered songs just as much as someone who's sitting there playing it for you from memory? After all, isn't a song in your mind used as the ultimate reference?

[superbeatballer]

The thought of a steak and egg breakfast doesn't even come close to satifying my hunger. It just makes me feel more hungry. When I'm cooking it, the anticipation raises my desire for it even more. When it's in my gut I feel satiated and have fond memories of the flavor experience.

[superbeatballer]

Bad analogy. Anyway, the thought of steak and eggs does not make those steak and eggs exist any more than the thought of a song brings the song into existance. In my little musical world the thought is the catalyst for the end product, be it recorded or played at a campfire.

[J.C. Scott]

I understand where you're coming from. Tell me if these points make any sense to you:

Songs are basically ideas and many originate and are created by the mind in the first place. They're only later copied from a persons head to some sort of recording device. Songs aren't always created by something tangible, such as a guitar, for instance.

If songs you've created in your head don't really exist as songs, then how is it possible to know what to record or play? What is a song, after all? It's just a melody or musical composition, even a lyric. There are a number of senses the word can be used. Can a melody or musical composition not exist in your head before exposing it to the world? If it can, what justifies claiming that a melody or composition created strictly in your mind isn't a song? After all, isn't that what they're using as a reference? If the reference isn't a song, what is it?

Further, even though an imagined bacon and eggs isn't real, we still call the imagined bacon and eggs what we perceive it to be (ie. bacon and eggs) not something else.

I'm not sure if you'd agree, but in my opinion a person isn't just 'imagining' that they're creating a song in their mind in the same way as when a person uses a tennis racket in front of a mirror to play rock star. They actually 'are' composing a song, with a melody, perhaps lyrics, instrumentation and so on. After all, isn't that the definition of a song? What difference does it make where the composition occurs?

[fraserhutch]

Originally Posted by J.C. Scott

I agree. But what about songs that haven't been recorded or even expressed through playing and are solely a product of your imagination? If they are complete compositions that only require copying from your head to a recording, is there any real reason why these should not be considered songs just as much as someone who's sitting there playing it for you from memory? After all, isn't a song in your mind used as the ultimate reference?

I think then that your fundamental question is, does a song require a performance to be a song (assuming that the performance could aslo be the act as transcription ot paper)?

I say no - I believe that a song exists from the moment of conception even if it only exists in your mind.

A song may change, progress and mature through the refinement of practice, editing, colloboration and arrangement, but the song itself predates all that.

[J.C. Scott]

Originally Posted by fraserhutch

I think then that your fundamental question is, does a song require a performance to be a song (assuming that the performance could aslo be the act as transcription ot paper)?

I say no - I believe that a song exists from the moment of conception even if it only exists in your mind.

A song may change, progress and mature through the refinement of practice, editing, colloboration and arrangement, but the song itself predates all that.

Excellent answer, and I couldn't agree more.

[wilko]

Originally Posted by J.C. Scott

Excellent answer, and I couldn't agree more.

I think you must be angling for a point here. If you have a whole composition in your head it certainly is a song to you but obviously not to anyone else (and I am not saying that is good or bad!). I write songs and use my 8 track to aid writing the song, as I chop and change it, rewrite it etc, and to me, the song is not finished until my singer has sung it and it is recorded. But if composing in your head works for you then great stuff!

On this thread I often see lyrics posted and I find it very hard to critique them as to me they must be accompanied with a melody and music. Until then it is poetry.

Many songs have vague lyrics but the song as a whole works wonderfully as the lyrics complement the music and are part of the music.

But like I say, if it works for you then keep at it!

[J.C. Scott]

Originally Posted by wilko

I think you must be angling for a point here.

I'm not angling (fishing?) for anything. I just thought he summed up what I was feeling very, very well.

If you have a whole composition in your head it certainly is a song to you but obviously not to anyone else.

Of course.

I write songs and use my 8 track to aid writing the song, as I chop and change it, rewrite it etc, and to me, the song is not finished until my singer has sung it and it is recorded. But if composing in your head works for you then great stuff!

Well, many times I'll sit down and just play around with the guitar or piano and let my imagination flow and not have any particular song idea in mind. That's certainly the way a lot of people do it.

However, I also can sit and compose a song strictly in my head using whatever instrumentation or vocals I imagine. Composing in my head allows me instant access to rewrites, instrument changes, arrangement modifications and so on. I can test out any idea without the limitations presented by physical equipment. I can change anything instantly, as it's playing. This allows me play with an infinite number of musical arrangements, instrumentation, production and mixing ideas live, on the fly.

Try that with even the best studio on the planet.

This is why I, personally (just my opinion) consider creating compositions in ones head to be a superior method of writing. You can achieve great results either way, but the freedom afforded one in their mind is truly limitless. Ever had a lucid dream?

On this thread I often see lyrics posted and I find it very hard to critique them as to me they must be accompanied with a melody and music. Until then it is poetry.

I tend to personally look at songs as more something involving music, but by definition it can be a poem.

But like I say, if it works for you then keep at it!

It works better for me because many times I can hear a complete overview of the song and know right then and there how it will sound once completed vs. only playing something on guitar or piano and having no idea how it'll sound with drums or bass or whatever.

Do you ever write music strictly in your mind, that is before ever touching an instrument? If so, how clearly are you able to hear it? Does it sound like what you'd want on tape or do you have difficulty imagining all of the instrumentation/production?

Lots of musicians write songs in their head, or at least I don't think I'm alone in this regard.

[ido1957]

Originally Posted by J.C. Scott

Do you ever write music strictly in your mind, that is before ever touching an instrument? If so, how clearly are you able to hear it? Does it sound like what you'd want on tape or do you have difficulty imagining all of the instrumentation/production?

Sometimes I will write the lyrics to a song with a rough idea of the music to go along with it. I'll actually record the vocals with no instruments to try and get what is in my head out to tape. Then refine it by adding the instruments/harmonies etc.

I did actually write most of a song in my head one morning while getting ready for work. I was at a hotel working out of town one week. That was pretty cool. It was pretty simple but I wish they could come as easy as that all the time .

I have to agree with Wilko to a certain extent. I enjoy reading lyrics but I find it easier to call it a "song" when they are put to music. Maybe because the music could go any direction and I'm searching for that part to complete the picture. Mainly because I can't get into the head of the person to know where it's going musically.

[fraserhutch]

Originally Posted by ido1957

I have to agree with Wilko to a certain extent. I enjoy reading lyrics but I find it easier to call it a "song" when they are put to music.

So this implies that you consider lyrics by themselves music? Personally, I don't, I consider that poetry or prose.

[Joepie]

Analogy:

Would you consider a book a 'book' before it has been written?

I'd say no. The author might say 'I have some ideas for a book' or 'I know what the storyline is going to be like' but it's not yet a book.

So, if you consider a 'song' to be a finished, tangible product, then it needs to be recorded or, at the very least, played... to be called a song.


On the other hand, if you define a song as 'a combination of lyrics and melody in a certain format' it can definately exist in the head in its final form, and thus be a song before it's performed.

Make sense?

[J.C. Scott]

Originally Posted by Joepie

Analogy:

Would you consider a book a 'book' before it has been written?

I'd say no. The author might say 'I have some ideas for a book' or 'I know what the storyline is going to be like' but it's not yet a book.

That's probably because a book is defined as being specifically written on paper, whereas a song has no such criteria.

So, if you consider a 'song' to be a finished, tangible product, then it needs to be recorded or, at the very least, played... to be called a song.

If a person considers it to be a tangible product, then yes.

On the other hand, if you define a song as 'a combination of lyrics and melody in a certain format' it can definately exist in the head in its final form, and thus be a song before it's performed.

Make sense?

Yes, and I think it can be any combination of lyrics, vocals, music, etc.

[cephus]

What's worse is that after I record something and listen to it a million times in the car, I realize that I really hate the next to last line in the second verse, but it's DONE and I can't go fix it.

[Dogman]

What is a song, really? To me it is at least music I can share.

[J.C. Scott]

Originally Posted by Dogman

What is a song, really? To me it is at least music I can share.

Why must it be shared in order to be considered a song, though? Do you not write for your own enjoyment first?

I tend to write music firstly for my own enjoyment. If others enjoy it that's great, but that's why I don't consider a song as something that must be shared; I'll still enjoy my music (recorded, played or imagined) regardless whether anyone ever hears it or not, although it does make me feel really good when others like it, too.

[random.hero]

SONG
Pronunciation: 'so[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English sang; akin to Old English singan to sing
1 : the act or art of singing
2 : poetical composition
3 a : a short musical composition of words and music b : a collection of such compositions
4 : a distinctive or characteristic sound or series of sounds (as of a bird or insect)
5 a : a melody for a lyric poem or ballad b : a poem easily set to music
6 a : a habitual or characteristic manner b : a violent, abusive, or noisy reaction <put up quite a song>
7 : a small amount <sold for a song>

i say yes

[fraserhutch]

Yes, that analogy fails for the reasons pointed out by J.C.
A closer analogy might be a "story", and the question would be "is a story a story before it gets written down to print"?

Again, I say yes.

Originally Posted by Joepie

Analogy:

Would you consider a book a 'book' before it has been written?

I'd say no. The author might say 'I have some ideas for a book' or 'I know what the storyline is going to be like' but it's not yet a book.

So, if you consider a 'song' to be a finished, tangible product, then it needs to be recorded or, at the very least, played... to be called a song.


On the other hand, if you define a song as 'a combination of lyrics and melody in a certain format' it can definately exist in the head in its final form, and thus be a song before it's performed.

Make sense?

[Joepie]

I think we all agree, what I was trying to point out was that for a lot of people a 'song' is something they can hear on the radio, or buy in a record store... something tangible, whereas for us musicians/homereccers it's more of an artistic thing... an idea or maybe emotion that we're trying to express. That's where the difference is.

So yeah, for me too, a song is a song when it's in my head... not when it's out there to be heard

[Dogman]

Originally Posted by J.C. Scott

Why must it be shared in order to be considered a song, though? Do you not write for your own enjoyment first?

I tend to write music firstly for my own enjoyment. If others enjoy it that's great, but that's why I don't consider a song as something that must be shared; I'll still enjoy my music (recorded, played or imagined) regardless whether anyone ever hears it or not, although it does make me feel really good when others like it, too.

Ahh...but what I am saying is, to me, If it's just in my mind, it's only a thought, or an idea. Once played, maybe not even recorded, it becomes a song. I don't always share my stuff, but enjoy doing that. It's always for me, but if I do nothing but keep it in my mind, it's only an idea at that point. I can hear many things, that I can't actually reproduce.....

[J.C. Scott]

Originally Posted by Dogman

Ahh...but what I am saying is, to me, If it's just in my mind, it's only a thought, or an idea.

I understand your point. They are ideas, they do exist in the mind. Consider this syllogism:

The dictionary defines a song as a melody
A person can create a melody in their head
Melodies in the mind can be labeled songs

I see nothing wrong with the above logic, although I certainly want to know if you see any holes in it.

In light of this, would you agree that "song" and "song idea" are both applicable?

I don't think anyone would think twice if you said you wrote a song in your head the other day. Now if you told them you created bacon and eggs in your mind for breakfast, they'd probably look at you funny.

No one questions that love exists in a person, for example. No one tends to think of another person as having a love "idea" just because they don't express their feelings openly. Is feeling love enough to make it love in your opinion?

[Dogman]

Originally Posted by J.C. Scott

I understand your point. They are ideas, they do exist in the mind. Consider this syllogism:

The dictionary defines a song as a melody
A person can create a melody in their head
Melodies in the mind can be labeled songs

I see nothing wrong with the above logic, although I certainly want to know if you see any holes in it.

In light of this, would you agree that "song" and "song idea" are both applicable?

I don't think anyone would think twice if you said you wrote a song in your head the other day. Now if you told them you created bacon and eggs in your mind for breakfast, they'd probably look at you funny.

No one questions that love exists in a person, for example. No one tends to think of another person as having a love "idea" just because they don't express their feelings openly. Is feeling love enough to make it love in your opinion?

Hmm....guess I never thought of it that way. I do write in my head all the time, and most would prbably call it a song...correctly. I just have never really done that, as I can hear the idea way better than I can get it done.....more just a shortcoming on my part.
Interesting thoughts....