grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
Not true. Without a voice, it's an instrumental song !
TalismanRich
Well-known member
If you take a song which has lyrics, and play it on an instrument without singing the lyrics, is it no longer a song?
rob aylestone
Moderator
Same song......
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
Ironically, "The song remains the same" started off as an instrumental....
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
Well, that's one definition. But what if it's a long poem set to music ? Is "Desolation Row" not a song ?
There simply are words for which there is rarely one fixed definition and 'song' is one of those words.
Wait till you get to 'flammable' ? and 'inflammable'? !
Chili
Site Moderator
If a song were to be played in the woods and no one was there to hear it, then who the hell played it???
rob aylestone
Moderator
Song Overview, Types & Examples | What is a Song? - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
Read about songs. Learn the definition of a song, and explore the different types of songs, including folk songs, sea shanties, and art songs, with...
Useful from a site with a musical perspective. Note the qualifications 'usually' and linking historic compositions. All I can say is that a pie ce of music with a recognisable form, with a melody is for me, a song. If Enya aaahed and oohed through one of her pieces of music, was that not a song? I'm comfy with instrumental denoting no singing of any kind, and the rights agencies like PRS and PPL recognise the implications of words to royalty distribution. You probably won't find the specific definition you seek in a general dictionary - but scholarly articles refer to songs where there are no words?
rob aylestone
Moderator
No - your opinion is absolutely solid. no issues, but I take a hummed melody as just that - the tune, so it's a song. I don't worry about it being a human voice or a flute - I am happy with a piece of music with a tune being a song - even if it's an instrumental. What we can't do is agree on this one.
I'm not really even bothered if it has verses and chorus. It goes the other way of course. My own labelling system would say Eric Carmen's All by Myself is 100% a song, but when Rachmaninov wrote it, with the song tune played on the orchestral instruments it wasn't a song - so it was a human singing the words that made it a song. I realise this is the opposite of my entire point, which just proves songs may, or may not have words, and be sung ......... I think.
I'm not really even bothered if it has verses and chorus. It goes the other way of course. My own labelling system would say Eric Carmen's All by Myself is 100% a song, but when Rachmaninov wrote it, with the song tune played on the orchestral instruments it wasn't a song - so it was a human singing the words that made it a song. I realise this is the opposite of my entire point, which just proves songs may, or may not have words, and be sung ......... I think.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Dictionaries provide definitions, but they do not define language. They document it. Usage defines language, which evolves over time, with words losing meanings, gaining meanings, and otherwise morphing into different forms. Dictionaries always have to catch up.
For example, 'mileage' was a word that described fuel usage in a car, i.e. mile per gallon. Since then it is often used to describe the value one gets out of somerthing, .e.g. "he got good mileage out of that story", and is still used here to describe fuel use, even though we converted to kilometres fifty years ago.
Language and music are oral phenomena that have post hoc structures (e.g. grammer) imposed upon them.
I generally regard a song as a melody rendered with voice, and an instrumental as a melody renderedwith a musical instrument, but equally I also use the term for both.
For example, 'mileage' was a word that described fuel usage in a car, i.e. mile per gallon. Since then it is often used to describe the value one gets out of somerthing, .e.g. "he got good mileage out of that story", and is still used here to describe fuel use, even though we converted to kilometres fifty years ago.
Language and music are oral phenomena that have post hoc structures (e.g. grammer) imposed upon them.
I generally regard a song as a melody rendered with voice, and an instrumental as a melody renderedwith a musical instrument, but equally I also use the term for both.
Papanate
Well-known member
How idiotic can it get? Is an instrumental a song? Really?
rob aylestone
Moderator
Gecko said it I think. Dictionary definitions are supportive , being examples of common usage, but an American Dictionary definition is pointless to a UK reader, and as a Brit - the Oxford English Disctionary is my standard - BUT - they have teams of people continually updating definitions to keep language current, definitions current and this modification is normal. Inclusion in a dictionary adds substance and assists many - but like laws, they mean little till a court takes the law definition and evaluates it to place it in a contemporary context. If you look in the music publications their definitions differ from a general dictionary. This is normal. Look in engineering circles and you find they have very specific versions of the generalist understanding.
BDJohnston wants his view to be the definitive one that we all have to agree on. This isn't going to be possible. His opinion is perfectly valid, and I think we're all content with it being an understandable viewpoint. Some of us differ. Our understanding of the the term is different. Location, culture, education and the context help me form my own one. I wouldn't say mine is the only one, but it is my viewpoint. I hear something and decide if it's a song. I might decide it's an instrumental - that title might fit. I don't see me ever using 'instrumental song'. I do get get it that singing might indicate a song - but I don't have that song=singing permanently linked view. So many of the definitions moderate themselves with 'usually', 'normally', ordinarily' etc because most times isn't the same as every time.
BDJohnston wants his view to be the definitive one that we all have to agree on. This isn't going to be possible. His opinion is perfectly valid, and I think we're all content with it being an understandable viewpoint. Some of us differ. Our understanding of the the term is different. Location, culture, education and the context help me form my own one. I wouldn't say mine is the only one, but it is my viewpoint. I hear something and decide if it's a song. I might decide it's an instrumental - that title might fit. I don't see me ever using 'instrumental song'. I do get get it that singing might indicate a song - but I don't have that song=singing permanently linked view. So many of the definitions moderate themselves with 'usually', 'normally', ordinarily' etc because most times isn't the same as every time.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
It might do but that is by no means clear because one only has to then ask why utilize the term "short poem" and not just "poem" ?
The historical context is valuable and really interesting but does little for the reality that words, meanings and phrases alter over time. Because that's how human beings are.
I tried that and it just meeeooowed.
It was quite a feat to eat dinner on the cat ? though ! All those undulations and purring noises......
I agree. But if you actually want to understand what some people mean, you sometimes need to bypass the dictionary definition and ascertain what the people you are seeking to understand actually mean by a word. I've worked with kids and young people for 38 years and believe me, if I went just by the dictionary, I'd have been no good to them because half the time I would never have known what they were saying !
Ironically, I'm always being told that I've swallowed a dictionary.
I play both sides of the fence, like a good double agent. ??
True and that can be awkward.
But it's not always the case. Some word meanings change over time because of the way words can be used, even when it is felt they have strict definitions at the time. As someone that reads ancient documents like the Torah or the New Testament and is trying to determine what the original writers meant and the original hearers/readers would have understood, it is quite clear to me that evolving language is not just some modern sport. It is as old as the hills. People struggled with words and meanings even before the time of Christ and the growth of the Roman empire. Language and meanings are actually surprisingly fluid over time. And using current definitions to determine what was meant by the same word 2~3000 years ago is as useful as wearing socks while running on molten volcano lava.
On the other hand, how sad that people can be so caught up in what something meant eons ago and can't acknowledge that through a lot of living in a lot of places, some meanings of words evolve and some change altogether.
We only have your word for that.
No one's disputing that. But it is also pretty obvious that for hundreds of years, peoples the world over have used the word 'song' {or whatever it is in the specific language} to denote pieces {aaahh....} that are instrumental. "Green Onions" and "Sylvia" are generally thought of as songs. In Nigeria and other West African nations there are many tribal songs that are not sung, just played. People just dance {or do other things} to them. There's an Indian raga called "Song before sunrise" ~ no words or singing. It wasn't written yesterday.
When I think of a word like 'song' I'm inclined to say "originally its meaning was.....but it now encompasses....." or something like that.
Precisely. That's just the way human beings are. When jazz appeared on the scene, writers might say to a producer "here's a little song I knocked up" and over time the line between songs and instrumentals got blurred with the term 'song' also applying to a song that isn't sung.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
The very fact that we're 140 replies and 7 years in tells one that it's not that idiotic.? It's an interesting debating point with some well made points and fervour on both sides.
rob aylestone
Moderator
I was just listening to the 1975 pick of the pops on BBC radio and one of the songs was Van McCoy - "Do the Hustle" It has the words "Do the Hustle" spoke-sung, every now and then. The rest is just instruments in a disco style. It's to me, a song, but not an instrumental because there are voices but they don't really sing - the tune is on a flute of all things!
TAE
All you have is now
Hmmmm I didn't read this thread all through the 7 other pages.
After reading the Websters dictionary definition of the word "song" the answer ( at least what I think is a practical conclusion is ) to the OP's question is answered in the question. Songs and Instrumentals are two absolutely different things.
Both are musical compositions but instrumentals by default are written to be performed by humans using inanimate instruments to create the harmonic vibrations of the composers musical intentions. They have no lyrics to be sung along with said composition.
A song is a musical composition with lyrics and melody.
That said English words like other languages sometimes can be used not exactly as originally defined. When the melody of that instrumental is whistled or hummed by a "living" / animate creature ( I had a cockatiel that I would teach songs to) How should I have described what the bird was doing ..I always said I taught the bird to sing the "leave it to beaver" theme melody and the four non blondes "what up" melody. I guess the proper description should have been I taught it to perform the melodies to those two melody lines.
Interestingly when we speak of TV show THEME SONGS we group both theme songs with lyrics and instrumentals as "theme songs"
Examine the motive of the OP...Why did he ask the question? I suspect it was because either he or someone he knew was not able to write lyrics but wanted to call themselves a songwriter...no lyrics..you're not a songwriter you're a composer...if you team up with a lyricist you are part of a songwriting team but you yourself individually are not a songwriter. Elton and Bernie Taupin are a perfect example of a songwriting team / match made in heaven. Elton could compose music like a madman but couldn't write lyrics. Bernie conversely was a brilliant lyricist but could not compose music to go with them. Together magic was made.
Of course there are many fortunate folks that can do both.
Songwriters write musical compositions with lyrics to be sung along with the composition = Song....making them...Songwriters
Composers write musical compositions to be played with musical instruments = Instrumental....making them ...Composers
You are not a songwriter per se if you are unable to write lyrics to go along with your composition.
Only if you add lyrics to that instrumental can it legitimately be defined as a song and you be considered a songwriter.
The End.
After reading the Websters dictionary definition of the word "song" the answer ( at least what I think is a practical conclusion is ) to the OP's question is answered in the question. Songs and Instrumentals are two absolutely different things.
Both are musical compositions but instrumentals by default are written to be performed by humans using inanimate instruments to create the harmonic vibrations of the composers musical intentions. They have no lyrics to be sung along with said composition.
A song is a musical composition with lyrics and melody.
That said English words like other languages sometimes can be used not exactly as originally defined. When the melody of that instrumental is whistled or hummed by a "living" / animate creature ( I had a cockatiel that I would teach songs to) How should I have described what the bird was doing ..I always said I taught the bird to sing the "leave it to beaver" theme melody and the four non blondes "what up" melody. I guess the proper description should have been I taught it to perform the melodies to those two melody lines.
Interestingly when we speak of TV show THEME SONGS we group both theme songs with lyrics and instrumentals as "theme songs"
Examine the motive of the OP...Why did he ask the question? I suspect it was because either he or someone he knew was not able to write lyrics but wanted to call themselves a songwriter...no lyrics..you're not a songwriter you're a composer...if you team up with a lyricist you are part of a songwriting team but you yourself individually are not a songwriter. Elton and Bernie Taupin are a perfect example of a songwriting team / match made in heaven. Elton could compose music like a madman but couldn't write lyrics. Bernie conversely was a brilliant lyricist but could not compose music to go with them. Together magic was made.
Of course there are many fortunate folks that can do both.
Songwriters write musical compositions with lyrics to be sung along with the composition = Song....making them...Songwriters
Composers write musical compositions to be played with musical instruments = Instrumental....making them ...Composers
You are not a songwriter per se if you are unable to write lyrics to go along with your composition.
Only if you add lyrics to that instrumental can it legitimately be defined as a song and you be considered a songwriter.
The End.
TAE
All you have is now
Oh yeah and Rob...you're correct Do the Hustle, albeit a damn short lyric line certainly by the definition of what a song is, is a song.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Dictionaries can only report on what was. They cannot report accurately on what is. The present is ever in a state of flux, driven by the swirling chaos of humanity. Some new usages are ugly, others are the opposite. Some are enduring, and others fade quickly into obscurity. Those that prove useful persist. My earlier example of 'mileage' is a good example of usefulness. Its metric equivalent, 'kilometerage' is tongue-twistingly bad, and vanished pretty much before it even started. But mileage . . . well, we're getting great mileage out of it.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
And this thread is getting a new lease of......kilometerage.
Unless the instrumental is an instrumental song............?
Ask mjb photos ~ he's the OP, he's pretty sound {no pun intended} and he still? regularly contributes.
Bernie Taupin is a songwriter. Elton John ? is a songwriter. They both contribute to the finished article of this dictionary definition of a song. ?
It's quite interesting in rock and pop's chequered past, where you have a particular band member replaced by a particular instrumentalist "to help with the songwriting." ✍?
rob aylestone
Moderator
George Gershwin was a composer - but his songs are pretty famous. As his brother wrote the words, surely Gershwin shouldn't be called a songwriter - but clearly he is.
We are in three camps. No, Yes and who cares! Great fun though.
We are in three camps. No, Yes and who cares! Great fun though.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Agree!
