Are instrumentals 'songs'?

I'm a dog. I don't lick my own balls...

Aw hell, just opened that up for comment huh. Dogbreath will help me out here. Oh hell...

Tail between legs...


lol
 
And of course this brings up one of the fundamentals of our society. The belief that might makes right, or right is governed by popular vote. Either is extremely flawed. Without a structure set that you can agree on right and wrong (like a dictionary) and everything is up for grabs (as to it's being right or wrong), how do you find a moral compass. If you can force someone to do what is wrong by coercion, peer pressure or popular vote does that make it right? If you allow that anybody can do what they believe is right, then why have rules at all?
So the problem boils down to two simple questions that I've asked before: If millions of people do something that is wrong, does that make it right? If one person is doing what's right, is it wrong? :eek:
 
VomitHatSteve said:
Because even though common sense says, "yes, instrumentals are songs. Why wouldn't they be?" the dictionary disagrees. The masses don't agree with the authority.
Click to expand...

The dictionary says a song doesn't have to be sung though. The "vocal" melody can be performed by instruments, therefore making it an instrumental and a song.
 
BroKen_H said:
And of course this brings up one of the fundamentals of our society. The belief that might makes right, or right is governed by popular vote. Either is extremely flawed. Without a structure set that you can agree on right and wrong (like a dictionary) and everything is up for grabs (as to it's being right or wrong), how do you find a moral compass. If you can force someone to do what is wrong by coercion, peer pressure or popular vote does that make it right?
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with where you are coming from, but there are certain things that actually leave enough room in the definition to permit some scope. "Songs" is one of those things, hence;
Greg_L said:
The dictionary says a song doesn't have to be sung though. The "vocal" melody can be performed by instruments, therefore making it an instrumental and a song.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, if you take some way out jazz pieces without "sung words", the melodic lines are virtually impossible to detect.
But not to the author or player.
So by the strict dictionary definition, some of those ridiculously obscure avant garde pieces are actually songs.
Why is this even a debate ?
Click to expand...
That's why it's a debate. It is not as black and white, cut and dried as it can be made to seem.
 
XploZiveToyz said:
My thoughts exactly. Another high-paid noodler in MHO.:guitar:LOL!
Click to expand...

Satriani is probably IMO the least offensive of all those douchebag guitar hero wank noodlers. His stuff at least sometimes has a fun feel and melody to his retarded wank shredding. The rest are just self indulgent scale exercisers and floyd rose benders..
 
Greg_L said:
Satriani is probably IMO the least offensive of all those douchebag guitar hero wank noodlers. His stuff at least sometimes has a fun feel and melody to his retarded wank shredding. The rest are just self indulgent scale exercisers and floyd rose benders..
Click to expand...
I love your writing style. :)
 
Personally, I don't mind a slow, overlaid Pink Floyd (ish) lead or a Satriani lead or any of the other douchebag guitar hero wank noodlers, if the stuff has some taste and flair. Self indulgent scale exerciers and floyd rose benders are great if there's some musical nuance, some striking tonal "cool" to it. Yngvie was flash. Sounded great to hear that many notes all at once, bombarding your audio input sensors. But it was just that. The first time you hear it, you say, wow, that was amazing. But then the 10th time you hear it, you say, wow, that's lame.
It doesn't mean it's not technically amazing, but our ears are not machines looking for the fastest data stream, they're inputs to a sophisticated gray mass that "feels" things. Everyone's senses are wired a bit different, so maybe Stevie Ray Vaughan kicks your jollys or Gary Moore or Steve Jones or Joe Bonamassa may float your boat. That's why there are so many different genres and styles.
 
personally I don't get offended by speed and players who can clearly show virtuosity are not simply noodling. I get into this argument a lot with other people, it's a never ending debate that shit guitarists really seem to hate, because it reflects their disappointment in knowing they'll never ever be able to play like them :D
 
Btyre2013 said:
personally I don't get offended by speed and players who can clearly show virtuosity are not simply noodling. I get into this argument a lot with other people, it's a never ending debate that shit guitarists really seem to hate, because it reflects their disappointment in knowing they'll never ever be able to play like them :D
Click to expand...
It's about tastefulness. I can noodle like a MF and make non-players and young players think I'm great, but it's all for show. My biggest talent is knowing when not to play! Shrapnel Records and Mike Varney don't sell many records. And there is a good reason for it; it bores the hell out of the music buying public! I can appreciate technical virtuosity...for about five minutes! Then it bores the hell out of me. Apparently the record buying public agrees with me.:guitar:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top